Bateman v. Com.

Decision Date30 November 1964
Citation205 Va. 595,139 S.E.2d 102
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
PartiesRichard BATEMAN, etc. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Robert B. Kendall, Norfolk (Herman A. Sacks, Sacks, Sacks & Kendall, Norfolk, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

D. Gardiner Tyler, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.

Before EGGLESTON, C. J., and SPRATLEY, BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON and CARRICO, JJ.

SPRATLEY, Justice.

At the April, 1963, term of the Corporation Court of the City of Norfolk, Part Two, nine indictments were returned against Richard Bateman, alias Richard Morgan Bateman. Each of eight indictments, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 contained four separate counts, charging four separate offenses to-wit: Count One, forgery of a certain check signed by Jerry H. Adams by raising the amount thereof; Count Two, uttering such check; Count Three, larceny of the amount of the said check from Jerry H. Adams; and Count Four, larceny of the amount of the check from the National Bank of Commerce of Norfolk. There were eight checks involved in the eight indictments. Each check bore a different date and each was made payable in a different amount. The remaining indictment, No. 8, contained four counts, of the same nature as those in the above eight indictments, relating to a check of Jerry H. Adams not involved in the other indictments, and also a fifth count charging grand larceny of the amount of the check from Edward F. Chinchello.

Bateman was tried first on the last mentioned indictment, No. 8, and acquitted by a jury on all five counts.

Subsequently, with his consent and that of counsel of his own choosing and also of the Attorney for the Commonwealth, he was tried on the eight remaining indictments at the same time and with the same jury. On the third and fourth counts of each of the indictments, the Commonwealth elected to try him on the charge of obtaining money by false pretenses. Code, § 18.1-118. The defendant pleaded not guilty to each indictment and each count thereof. The jury found him not guilty under Indictments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

On Indictment No. 3 he was found guilty on the first, second and third counts, that is, of forgery, of uttering the forged check, and of larceny of the sum of $205.00 from Adams, and his punishment fixed at six months in jail on each count. He was found not guilty of the fourth count charging larceny from the National Bank of Commerce.

Under Indictment No. 9, he was found guilty on the first, second and third counts, that is, of forgery of the check, uttering the forged check, and larceny of $610.00 from Adams, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary on each count. He was found not guilty of the charge in count four, that is, for the larceny of the money from the National Bank of Commerce.

The court entered judgment according to the verdicts. The defendant excepted, and we granted this writ of error.

The material facts may be summarized as follows:

Bateman and Adams became acquainted with each other about one year prior to the time of the commission of the offenses charged in the indictments. Adams had recovered approximately $7,000.00 in payment for personal injuries he had received in an accident, and had deposited the money in the National Bank of Commerce to the credit of himself and his mother. Adams and the defendant began to 'hang around together.' Adams was physically unable to drive an automobile. He was driven by Bateman in the latter's automobile 'most of the time' to various places in the area of Norfolk for recreation and entertainment. All expenses incurred were usually paid by Adams, who issued checks on his bank for that purpose. He said that because he 'didn't know how to fill them out' he had Bateman fill them out, except for his (Adams') name. Adams could write but not 'well.'

In February, 1963, he signed a number of checks for various small sums, payable to Bateman or to 'Cash.' Bateman took the checks and cashed them. When the checks, mentioned in the indictments, were returned by the National Bank of Commerce as paid by it, Adams discovered that they had been raised in various amounts. When Bateman filled out the checks, he left a blank space between the dollar signs on the checks and where he put the figures originally requested by Adams, and also left a space between the left-hand margin of the check and where he began the writing of the amount; and later inserted other figures and writing in the blank spaces.

Bateman admitted to police officers that he cashed the two checks here involved, bearing his signature as endorser. He denied cashing checks not made out to him, as payee, although they bore his signature as endorser. However, the persons who cashed those checks identified Bateman as the person who received the money therefrom.

Specifically, it was shown that under Indictment No. 3, a check dated February 14, 1963, payable to Bateman, was signed by Adams as made out for $5.00; but was thereafter raised to $205.00. Bateman filled in all the writing on the check, except the signature of Adams, and thereafter cashed it. The bank paid the check and charged it to the account of Adams.

Under Indictment No. 9, a check dated February 27, 1963, made out for the sum of $10.00, payable to 'Cash,' when signed by Adams was subsequently raised to $610.00. This check was written by Bateman, except for the signature of the maker, and thereafter endorsed by Bateman and cashed by him for the sum of $610.00. The bank paid this amount to Bateman and charged it to the account of Adams.

Bateman did not testify, nor present any evidence in his behalf.

Upon appeal Bateman assigns numerous grounds of error. However, in his brief and argument, he relies principally on the assignments that the trial court erred: (1) in imposing 'separate penalties on each count of the indictments upon which he was found guilty;' (2) in holding that he could be 'found guilty of both forgery and uttering,' and punished separately for each offense; (3) in holding that he could be found guilty of forgery of the checks and also the larceny of the proceeds of the checks from the person whose name was forged thereto; and (4) in granting Instruction C-4.

We will consider the assignments of error in the order in which they above appear.

I

Was it error to allow several felonies to be charged in separate counts in one indictment? We think not.

Each of the counts charged in the several indictments alleged a separate offense. The offenses charged in the counts were of the same general nature and connected with the same transaction. No objection was made by the defendant before the verdict to the inclusion of separate counts in each of the indictments, nor to the trial of all the counts in the indictments at one time in one trial. Virginia Code, 1950, § 19.1-165. On the other hand, the defendant specifically agreed to one trial, and this necessarily included the trial of all the counts in the indictments.

'Where one or more of the acts are committed at a certain time, and other or the same acts are committed at a different time, the pleader may charge them in different counts; and, if they are proved, the defendant may be convicted of the several offenses so committed on different occasions, and punished for each offense.' Morganstern v. Commonwealth, 94 Va. 787, 790, 26 S.E. 402, 403.

'There is no reason on principle, however, why even two felonies of the same nature and punishable in the same manner may not be charged in different counts of the same indictment.' Pine v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Walker v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 17 d2 Junho d2 1997
    ...to be forged. The record supports a conviction for forgery. Uttering is an offense separate from forgery. See Bateman v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 595, 599, 139 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1964); Johnson v. Commonwealth, 102 Va. 927, 929, 46 S.E. 789, 790 (1904). "The word 'utter' is defined in Black's La......
  • Eley v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 16 d2 Abril d2 2019
    ...338-39, 768 S.E.2d 256 (2015) (relying upon multiple legal and non-legal dictionary definitions and citing Bateman v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 595, 599-600, 139 S.E.2d 102 (1964), in which the Court "rel[ied] exclusively" on a dictionary definition); Auer, 46 Va. App. at 645-47, 621 S.E.2d 140......
  • Thims v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 10 d5 Junho d5 1977
    ...cause to believe that the car was the fruit of the crime of larceny through Thims's use of a forged check, Bateman v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 595, 139 S.E.2d 102 (1964), and that it contained the stolen stereo justified the If the seizure was lawful, the ensuing search was valid, whether it b......
  • Muhammad v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 24 d2 Setembro d2 1991
    ...be guilty of a criminal offense, but it is not forgery as defined by Virginia common law. See Code § 18.2-178; see Bateman v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 595, 139 S.E.2d 102 (1964); Bullock v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 867, 140 S.E.2d 821, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 927, 86 S.Ct. 310, 15 L.Ed.2d 341 For ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT