Cameron v. People
| Decision Date | 29 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 22783,22783 |
| Citation | 462 P.2d 606,170 Colo. 504 |
| Parties | Glen Lyle CAMERON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Laura Frances Riley, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error relating to the conviction of defendant Glen Lyle Cameron of forgery and conspiracy.
The attorney general has confessed error in this proceeding.
The cases cited by the attorney general teach that when an instrument has been passed by the defendant and the defendant knows the instrument to be false when passed, a presumption arises that the instrument was passed with intent to defraud, particularly when it is also 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 485.
Thus proof of guilty knowledge is an essential element to warrant conviction. In all of the cited cases there is evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the defendant knew or must have known that the instrument was false. But in the case at bar, it is admitted that there is no such evidence. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary; and there is no basis--such as is available in the preceding cases--to infer from the circumstances that the defendant must have known the falsity of the instrument in question. Thus, similar to Owen v. People, 118 Colo. 415, 195 P.2d 953, we have a situation in which guilty knowledge has not been established; therefore, there is no evidence of the specific intent to defraud.
The People's case was based on the attorney general's concern about a quote in Anderson v. People, 161 Colo. 541, 423 P.2d 576, taken from the case of Rhodus v. People, 160 Colo. 407, 418 P.2d 42, which appeared to announce a principle that where a defendant has uttered a check which is otherwise proved to be fictitious an inference can be drawn that he had both the guilty knowledge and the requisite intent to defraud. We did not so hold as that would constitute an inference upon an inference. The attorney general agrees that three subsequent cases, Pollock v. People, Colo., 443 P.2d 738, Mendez v. People, Colo., 442 P.2d 420, and Anderson v. Patterson, Colo., 441 P.2d 676, make clear the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rubanowitz
...adopted by the Territorial Legislature of Colorado in 1861. See 1861 Terr. Laws Colo., Div. VII, § 67, at 302-03. In Cameron v. People, 170 Colo. 504, 462 P.2d 606 (1969), we held that to obtain a conviction of forgery under the then applicable statutory provisions the prosecution must esta......
-
People v. Randell
...knew that the instrument was false or fictitious.” People v. Rubanowitz, 688 P.2d 231, 237 (Colo.1984); see also Cameron v. People, 170 Colo. 504, 505, 462 P.2d 606, 607 (1969) (reversing forgery conviction where defendant did not know instrument was false). He notes that the ¶ 36 supreme c......
-
People v. Miralda
...People v. Colosacco, 177 Colo. 219, 493 P.2d 650 (1972). Further, contrary to the People's argument here, neither Cameron v. People, 170 Colo. 504, 462 P.2d 606 (1969) nor People v. White, 804 P.2d 247 (Colo.App.1990) is dispositive of this issue. In each of those cases, the defendant had p......
-
People v. Barringer
...Colorado Motor Vehicle Dealer Licensing Bd. v. Northglenn Dodge, Inc., 972 P.2d 707, 715 (Colo.App.1998), citing Cameron v. People, 170 Colo. 504, 462 P.2d 606 (1969). Barringer knew at the time he executed the settlement agreement and endorsed the settlement check, which he made to appear ......
-
Opinions
...Motor Vehicle Dealer Licensing Bd. v. Northglenn Dodge, Inc.,972 P.2d 707, 715 (Colo. App. 1998), citing Cameron v. People, 170 Colo. 504, 462 P.2d 606 (1969). Barringer knew at the time executed the settlement agreement and endorsed the settlement check, which he made to appear to be Cianc......
-
Opinions
...Motor Vehicle Dealer Licensing Bd. v. Northglenn Dodge, Inc.,972 P.2d 707, 715 (Colo. App. 1998), citing Cameron v. People, 170 Colo. 504, 462 P.2d 606 (1969). Barringer knew at the time executed the settlement agreement and endorsed the settlement check, which he made to appear to be Cianc......