Finger v. State, No. 771S196

Docket NºNo. 771S196
Citation260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25, 35 Ind.Dec. 410
Case DateMarch 07, 1973
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 25

293 N.E.2d 25
260 Ind. 148
Paul E. FINGER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 771S196.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 7, 1973.

[260 Ind. 149] Frank E. Spencer, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Paul H. Frazier, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PRENTICE, Justice.

Defendant (Appellant) was convicted in 1968 of uttering a forged check under Acts of 1905, ch. 169, § 676, 1956 Repl. Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. § 10--2102, IC 1971, 35--1--124--1. He was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than fourteen years. His appeal to this Court is taken from an adverse ruling upon a belated motion to correct errors and presents two issues:

(1) Insufficiency of the evidence.

(2) Violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel at his trial.

Neither issue has merit.

(1) The evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, discloses that the defendant presented a payroll check to the manager of the 7--11 Market in Indianapolis and asked that it be cashed. The check was purportedly drawn by the J. J. Hoffman Co. and payable to the order of Alex Williams. Upon request for identification, Defendant gave the manager a photo copy of the record of birth of one Mary Alice Williams, which record named Alex Williams as her father. When the manager indicated his reluctance to cash the check and advised the defendant that it was not even his check, the defendant replied that he had taken it as payment for a television set which he had sold. The manager being suspicious, telephoned both the bank and the Hoffman Company and learned that the check was one in a series of printed check forms previously stolen from the Hoffman Company and that the blanks had

Page 26

been filled in and the signature added by forgery. He so advised the defendant, who insisted that he had taken it in payment for the television set. Unknown to the defendant, the manager also summoned the police by an [260 Ind. 150] alarm system. Testimony from representatives of the Hoffman Company and the bank established that the check had been stolen, was not signed by an authorized person and that neither the defendant nor Alex Williams were employees or otherwise creditors of the Hoffman Company. The defendant remained in the store for a period of approximately five minutes while the foregoing transpired. He was aware of the manager's telephone calls to the bank and to the Hoffman Company, and although he was aware of their charges of theft and forgery, with respect to the check, he made no attempt to leave. When two police officers arrived in response to the manager's call, however, he and a companion attempted to exit as the first officer entered, but they were grabbed and detained by the second officer, who was entering the premises behind the first.

We hold that the foregoing was sufficient evidence of the defendant's 'intent to defraud,' an essential element of the offense charged. The recent case of McAfee v. State (1973), Ind., 291 N.E.2d 554, is but one in a long line of cases holding that the requisite guilty knowledge and intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. The irregularity of the presentment of the check drawn to the order of another person but not endorsed by him with evidence of the identity of such other person, rather than of the presenter, coupled with an unlikely story of having accepted the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Davis v. State, No. PS
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 26, 1981
    ...of the money order in the name of Ronald Greenwald, and that he is, in fact, not Ronald Greenwald. See generally Finger v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25; Reid v. State (1973), 156 Ind.App. 692, 298 N.E.2d 5 IC 35-4.1-1-6(b) provides: "(b) After entry of a plea of guilty but befo......
  • Williams v. State, No. 1-880A220
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 27, 1981
    ...Stice v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 144, 89 N.E.2d 915; Petillo v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 97, 82 N.E.2d 623.' See also Finger v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25; Walker v. State, supra; Haynes v. State (1973), 155 Ind.App. 472, 293 N.E.2d Therefore, the task before this Court is to de......
  • Johnson v. State, No. 2-980A306
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 20, 1981
    ...whether an inference may be reasonably drawn therefrom tending to support the finding of the trier of facts." Finger v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25 (citation omitted). When there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting the verdict, the conviction will not be set ......
  • Lagenour v. State, No. 277S119
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 30, 1978
    ...allegations of intentional misconduct and substantial prejudice in it, as they were mere opinions and conclusions. Finger v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25; Scharbrough v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 316, 232 N.E.2d [268 Ind. 448] The specific facts averred by appellant are: (1) that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Davis v. State, No. PS
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 26, 1981
    ...of the money order in the name of Ronald Greenwald, and that he is, in fact, not Ronald Greenwald. See generally Finger v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25; Reid v. State (1973), 156 Ind.App. 692, 298 N.E.2d 5 IC 35-4.1-1-6(b) provides: "(b) After entry of a plea of guilty but befo......
  • Williams v. State, No. 1-880A220
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 27, 1981
    ...Stice v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 144, 89 N.E.2d 915; Petillo v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 97, 82 N.E.2d 623.' See also Finger v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25; Walker v. State, supra; Haynes v. State (1973), 155 Ind.App. 472, 293 N.E.2d Therefore, the task before this Court is to de......
  • Johnson v. State, No. 2-980A306
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 20, 1981
    ...whether an inference may be reasonably drawn therefrom tending to support the finding of the trier of facts." Finger v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25 (citation omitted). When there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting the verdict, the conviction will not be set ......
  • Lagenour v. State, No. 277S119
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 30, 1978
    ...allegations of intentional misconduct and substantial prejudice in it, as they were mere opinions and conclusions. Finger v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 148, 293 N.E.2d 25; Scharbrough v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 316, 232 N.E.2d [268 Ind. 448] The specific facts averred by appellant are: (1) that ......
  • 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