Hansel v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 23 March 1916 |
| Citation | 88 S.E. 166 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | HANSEL. v. COMMONWEALTH. |
Error to Circuit Court, Russell County.
R. S. Hansel was convicted of forgery, and with uttering and attempting to employ a forged instrument with intent to defraud, and he brings error. Reversed and remanded.
C. S. McNulty, of Roanoke, and Finney & Wilson, of Lebanon, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
WHITTLE, J. This is a joint indictment against R. S. Hansel and S. H. Robinett containing two counts. The first count charges Hansel with forging an option contract for the sale of certain coal land lying in the counties of Russell and Buchanan, and Robinett with counseling, hiring, procuring, and aiding and abetting him in the commission of the forgery; and the second count charges Hansel with uttering and attempting to employ as true the forged instrument, with intent to defraud, etc.
The jury found the accused (Hansel) guilty as charged in the indictment, and fixed his punishment at three years' confinement in the penitentiary, and upon that verdict the judgment under review was rendered.
1. The first assignment of error is to the admission in evidence of the contract of February 9, 1914, between Robinett of the one part and Hansel and Griffith of the other part, whereby the former assigned to the two latter two-thirds of the amount claimed to be due to Robinett from the Smith heirs as commissions for procuring a purchaser for land under the option contract. The grounds of objection to the admission of the paper were: (1) That it was not sufficiently identified; and (2) that it was immaterial.
The execution of the paper was proved by the testimony of Griffith, one of the parties, and also the lawyer who prepared it, and, when offered in evidence, its identity was established by that witness. The materiality of the paper is shown by the circumstance that Hansel, who was introduced as a witness for Robinett in the suit for commissions, was entitled to one-third of the recovery; and, moreover, the execution of the contract of assignment, the institution of the suit by Griffith to recover commissions, and Hansel's testifying at the trial as plaintiff's witness were relevant occurrences tending to sustain the charge against him of uttering the forged instrument.
2. The ground of exception here relied on is not made an assignment of error in the petition; it is discussed for the first timein the reply brief. Waiving, however, that irregularity of procedure, the objection pressed upon us is to the admission by the trial court of the stenographic report of Hansel's testimony in the suit for commissions. It is said: (1) That the stenographic report of the evidence, which the court allowed one of the prosecutors to read to the jury, was not properly authenticated.
The fact is that, in the absence of the jury, the admissibility of this evidence was fully discussed, and the court observed:
"The court permits the evidence of the defendant (Hansel) given in the civil case, which is admitted to be correct, or about which there is no controversy, to be read in evidence upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES v. Cherry
...ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice"); see also Hansel v. Commonwealth, 118 Va. 803, 808, 88 S.E. 166, 167 (1916) (declining to reach the merits of defendant's objection, not preserved below, to the reading into evidence of the......
-
MORGAN CHERRY & ASSOCIATES v. Cherry
...its decision to enter judgment against MMCA. Therefore, this claim is procedurally barred. Rule 5A:18; see also Hansel v. Commonwealth, 118 Va. 803, 808, 88 S.E. 166, 167 (1916); cf. Hess v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 738, 739-44, 441 S.E.2d 29, 30-33 (1994). At trial, MMCA did not object on ......
-
Frazier v. Com.
...in order for the testimony to have been given "when [the person was] examined as a witness in his own behalf." Hansel v. Commonwealth, 118 Va. 803, 88 S.E. 166 (1916). In Hansel, the accused was charged with forging and uttering an option contract for the sale of land. Id. at 807, 88 S.E. a......
-
Boney v. Com.
...behalf" because he and Boney had a "joint interest" in the events that were the focus of the litigation. See Hansel v. Commonwealth, 118 Va. 803, 809, 88 S.E. 166, 167 (1916). Consequently, the witness would not have been entitled to any protection under the statute. Moreover, Code § 19.2-2......
-
6.7 Immunity
...419 S.E.2d 263.[102] Thornton v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 2, 7, 467 S.E.2d 820, 822 (1996).[103] Hansel v. Commonwealth, 118 Va. 803, 88 S.E. 166 (1916); Frazier v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 595, 587 S.E.2d 362 (2003) (en banc), vacating 40 Va. App. 350, 579 S.E.2d 628 (2003); Thornton, 22......