Barker v. People
| Decision Date | 01 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21167,21167 |
| Citation | 407 P.2d 34,158 Colo. 381 |
| Parties | William D. BARKER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Howard J. Miller, Wheatridge, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., George H. Sibley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
We will refer to the plaintiff in error by name.
Barker sued out this writ of error to a judgment of conviction entered in the district court upon the verdict of a jury finding him guilty of the crime of forgery. The information in pertinent part charged Barker with falsely uttering and passing at one of the Safeway Stores in Jefferson County as true and genuine a check written on the account of Angelo T. De Carolis at the Jefferson County Bank, 'knowing the same to be a false, altered, forged and counterfeited instrument' and with the intent to defraud the Safeway Stores, Inc., De Carolis, and the Jefferson County Bank.
In the summary of argument Barker alleged error as follows: 1. that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the state failed to prove knowledge on his part that the check was forged and false; 2. that photographs of Barker were not sufficiently identified and authenticated to permit their admission into evidence; and 3. that an oral instruction by the court to the jury in connection with similar transactions was erroneous. We will take up the points in that order.
Testimony of witnesses for the people established that on the day in question, at a Safeway Store in the Westland Shopping Center in Jefferson County, a man identified as Barker presented a check in the amount of $85.20 on which he was named as the payee and upon which appeared a signature 'Angelo T. De Carolis.' He said he had no identification with him except a draft card, and the clerk remembered the transaction because of the fact that few persons present such item for identification purposes. The notation 'draft card' was made on the back of the check. It was endorsed by Barker. He represented at the time that it was his paycheck. The check was a printed one containing in the upper left hand corner the words: 'De Carolis Standard Service 38th and Kipling Ha. 4-9060 Wheatridge, Colorado.'
De Carolis testified as follows: That a book of his checks and a check writer had disappeared from his station. He stated that he knew Barker; that he remembered his being in his service station, but that Barker had never been in his employ; that there was no occasion whereby Barker would be entitled to receive any check from him or the service station; and that the signature of the check was not his (De Carolis) signature. Evidence was also presented that the defendant had cashed two other checks on the same day, similarly made out for the same amount of money. At one of the other stores, Barker's picture had been taken to record the transaction.
The defendant offered no evidence on his own behalf and did not testify in the case.
Defendant argues that the possession of and passing of the check is insufficient to establish that he knew the check had been forged. However, possession and cashing the check was not the only evidence presented by the people upon which his conviction rests. One of the ways the crime of forgery, C.R.S.1963, 40-6-1, may be committed is by passing a forged or spurious instrument as true and genuine. Davenport v. People, 138 Colo. 291, 332 P.2d 485; Wright v. People, 116 Colo. 306, 181 P.2d 447; People v. McDonald, 53 Colo. 265, 125 P. 114. Misrepresentations made by the accused in uttering the instrument is sufficient evidence of his knowledge of its falsity. Knowledge and intent to defraud may be sufficiently established by all the circumstances. See 37 C.J.S. Forgery § 100.
In this case, in addition to possession and passing of the check, Barker made the false representation that it was a salary check. The other direct evidence is also cogent, namely, that Barker had not been employed in the service station or by the maker of the check; that he had not received any salary from De Carolis; and that he had no money transaction which would have entitled him to receive a check from the maker thereof. The aforementioned facts, coupled with similar transactions at other supermarkets on the same day, which were admitted into evidence for the limited purpose of showing intent, scheme and design to defraud, give a total picture which supports the conviction.
The photographic exhibits admitted into evidence were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bergner v. State
...functioning of the camera and processing of the photograph. United States v. Gray, (1976 8th Cir.) 531 F.2d 933; Barker v. People, (1965) 158 Colo. 381, 407 P.2d 34; Sisk v. State, (1964) 236 Md. 589, 204 A.2d 684 (expressly adopting silent witness theory for first time); State v. Tatum, (1......
-
People v. Miralda
...from circumstantial evidence and from the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from those circumstances. Barker v. People, 158 Colo. 381, 407 P.2d 34 (1965). Here, however, there were no "circumstances" established by the evidence other than that defendant possessed a forged INS resident......
-
Cameron v. People
...established that the defendant participated in the proceeds of the passing. Nahler v. People, 159 Colo. 20, 409 P.2d 508; Barker v. People, 158 Colo. 381, 407 P.2d 34; Gonzales v. People, 149 Colo. 548, 369 P.2d 786; Davenport v. People, 138 Colo. 291, 332 P.2d Thus proof of guilty knowledg......
-
Oja v. State
...73, 360 P.2d 754; Sisk v. State, 1963, 232 Md. 155, 192 A.2d 108; Sisk v. State, 1964, 236 Md. 589, 204 A.2d 684. See Barker v. People, 1965, 158 Colo. 381, 407 P.2d 34. In Furr v. State, Fla.App.2d 1970, 229 So.2d 269, this court stated: 'The prime condition as to the admissibility of a ph......