Bush v. State
| Decision Date | 14 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 967S78,967S78 |
| Citation | 251 Ind. 84,237 N.E.2d 584 |
| Parties | Douglas Herbert BUSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Frank E. Spencer, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, Murray West, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Criminal Court of Marion County, Division 1, in a cause in which the appellant was tried by he court and found guilty of the offense of uttering a foreged instrument. The appellant asserts error in the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.
The formal charge lodged against the appellant was by affidavit, and omitting the formal points, as follows:
'* * * Leroy G. Callahan who, being duly sworn upon his oath says that Douglas Herbert Bush on or about the 21st day of December, A.D. 1966, at and in the County of Marion in the State of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly utter, publish, pass and deliver to INDIANA HOTEL COMPANY, a corporation doing business as CLAYPOOL HOTEL, as true and genuine, a certain false, forged and counterfeit check for the payment of money, to-wit: Forty-three Dollars ($43.00) in lawful money, said pretended check purporting to have been made and executed by one E. B. Brown in favor of Lawrence Orr which said false, forged and counterfeit check is of the following tenor, viz:
with intent then and there and thereby feloniously, falsely and fraudulently to defraud the said Indiana Hotel Company, a corporation doing business as Claypool Hotel, the said Douglas Herbert Bush then and there well knowing the said check to be false, forged and counterfeit, then and there being contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.'
Appellant contends that there was no evidence that the check in question was forged by anyone or that the defendant knew it was forged. Appellant contends further that it did not purport to be a check made by anyone other than 'E. G. Grawn'. It is questionable whether the check is written as E. B. Brown or E. G. Grawn, the letters 'G' and 'B' as written, being in some doubt, and the letter 'a' in the second name rather than 'o' likewise being of some doubt. This would in no way be material to the matter on appeal.
The pertinent part of Burns' § 10--2102 reads as follows:
'Whoever * * * utters * * * any * * * instrument * * * knowing the same to be false, defaced, altered, forged, * * * falsely printed or photographed, with intent to defraud any person * * * shall, on conviction, be imprisoned in the state prison * * *'
This court has held 'uttering' a forged instrument is the passing of same for payment; Strickland v. State, (1940), 217 Ind. 588, 29 N.E.2d 950.
The state offered testimony by the general cashier of the Claypool Hotel, Indianapolis. On December 21, 1966 appellant came to her cashier's window to cash a check, state's exhibit No. 3. The cashier was cross-examined by the attorney for the appellant as to this exhibit as follows:
'Q--Mrs. Phillips, at this time I will show you what has been marked for purposes of identification State's Exhibit Number Three and ask if you can tell us what that is please?
A--Yes, sir, that's the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...a conviction will be sustained if there is any evidence of probative value of the facts essential to support the judgment. Bush v. State (1968), Ind., 237 N.E.2d 584; Butler v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 484, 229 N.E.2d 471. Further, this Court on appeal will not weigh the evidence nor determin......
-
Angel v. State
...INSTRUCTION NO. 4 The 'uttering' of a forged instrument is accomplished when a person presents the same for payment. Bush v. State, 1968 (251 Ind. 84), 237 N.E.2d 584 Scruggs v. State, 1969 (252 Ind. 249), 247 N.E.2d 'DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION The defendant would object to State's Instruction N......
-
Williams v. State
...to cash a forged instrument. England v. State, 249 Ind. 446, 448-49, 233 N.E.2d 168, 170-71 (1968); see also Bush v. State, 251 Ind. 84, 87-88, 237 N.E.2d 584, 586-87 (1968); Angel v. State, 155 Ind.App. 242, 246-49, 292 N.E.2d 268, 271-72 (1973) (discussing jury instructions on intent to d......
-
Douglas v. State
...rule is that a conviction will be sustained if there is any evidence of the facts essential to support the judgment. Bush v. State (1968), Ind., 237 N.E.2d 584. When the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is raised the Supreme Court will consider all that evidence most favorable to......