Cohen v. People
| Decision Date | 14 March 1884 |
| Citation | 7 Colo. 274,3 P. 385 |
| Parties | COHEN v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to district court of San Juan county.
H O. Montague, H. B. Wilson, and Sam. Slessinger for plaintiff in error.
D F. Urmy, Atty. Gen., for the People.
The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the court below upon the following indictment:
'The grand jurors selected and sworn within and for the county of San Juan, in the name and by the authority of the people of the state of Colorado, upon their oaths present that M. K. Cohen, late of the county of San Juan aforesaid, on, to-wit, the third day of January, 1882, at the county of San Juan and state aforesaid, did counterfeit and forge the handwriting of another, to-wit, Lawsha Brothers, to a certain promissory note of the date of January 3, 1882, for the sum of $460, with the intent to damage and defraud the said Lawsha Brothers and Heffron & Johnson, and against the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Colorado.'
Numerous errors are assigned as grounds for reversal of the judgment, only a few of which it is necessary to notice. The indictment is objected to as insufficient, for the reason that it fails to set out a copy of the instrument upon which the forgery is predicated, and because the act is not charged to have been done 'falsely' and 'feloniously.' The first clause of the statute upon which the indictment is founded declares that 'every person who shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit any record, * * * promissory note, * * *' etc.; while the latter clause is as follows: '* * * or shall counterfeit or forge the seal or handwriting of another, with intent to damage or defraud any person, * * * every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of forgery, * * *' etc. Gen. St. § 775. This indictment is drawn upon the latter clause of this section of the crimes act, and, as is seen, is framed in the language of the act, and hence it was not essential to use the words 'falsely make,' or to set out the instrument as might possibly be required under the definition of the crime in the first clause, nor was the use of the word 'feloniously' necessary. This term is employed in charging a felony for the purpose of denoting the intent with which the act is charged to have been done. The clause of the act under which this indictment is framed expresses the intent necessary to constitute the offense, and hence renders superfluous the use of the term 'felonious.' Besides, forgery was a misdemeanor at common law; the term 'felonious' being alleged only in respect of crimes denominated felonies, which deprived the accused of the benefit of clergy upon conviction; and for this reason it has been held by the courts of several states that the term 'felonious' need not be used in indictment for forgery, especially in states where, by statute, it is provided, as in this state, (section 925, Gen. St.,) that 'every indictment or accusation of the grand jury shall be deemed sufficiently technical and correct, which states the offense in the terms and language of this Code, or so plainly that the nature of the offense may be easily understood by the jury.' Miller v. People, 2 Scam. 233; Quigley v. People, Id. 301; Butler v. State, 22 Ala. 43; Jane v. Com. 3 Metc. (Ky.) 18; Peck v. State, 2 Humph. 77; People v. Olivera, 7 Cal. 403; Whart. Crim. Law, §§ 399, 400, 1419.
It is also assigned in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cervantes v. People
...in charging a felony "for the purpose of denoting the intent with which the act is charged to have been done." Cohen v. People, 7 Colo. 274, 275, 3 P. 385, 386 (1884). Because the defendant has conceded in his brief that the pretrial version of the information sufficiently charged third deg......
-
Withaup v. United States
... ... White, 145 Mass. 392, 14 N.E. 611; ... State v. Rose, 70 Minn. 403, 73 N.W. 177; State ... v. Hodges, 144 Mo. 50, 45 S.W. 1093; People v ... Everhardt, 104 N.Y. 591, 11 N.E. 62; Cohen v ... People, 7 Colo. 274, 3 P. 385; People v. Frank, ... 28 Cal. 507, 515 ... Much ... ...
-
Albert v. People, 12967.
...or so plainly that the nature of the crime may be readily and easily understood by a jury. Dougherty v. People, 1 Colo. 514; Cohen v. People, 7 Colo. 274, 3 P. 385; Imboden v. People, 40 Colo. 142, 90 P. Knepper v. People, 63 Colo. 396, 167 P. 779.' See, also, Bridge v. People, 63 Colo. 319......
-
Wright v. U.S.
...873, 39 W.Va. 468; State v. Murphy, 24 A. 473, 17 R.I. 698, 16 L. R. A. 550; Bolen v. People, 56 N.E. 408, 184 Ill. 338; Cohen v. People, 3 Pac. 385, 7 Colo. 274. judgment of the district court is reversed and vacated, and case remanded, with direction to the trial court to proceed in confo......