Harris v. Com.

• Decision Date: 26 April 1971
• Citation: 211 Va. 742,180 S.E.2d 520
• Parties: Frank Louis HARRIS v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 520

180 S.E.2d 520

211 Va. 742

Frank Louis HARRIS v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

April 26, 1971.

John B. Gilmer, Richmond, for plaintiff in error.

William P. Robinson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., C. Tabor Cronk, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.

Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, HARRISON, COCHRAN and HARMAN, JJ.

I'ANSON, Justice.

Defendant, Frank Louis Harris, was found guilty by a jury of uttering a forged instrument and his punishment fixed at six years in the penitentiary.Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the jury's verdict, and he is here on a writ of error.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) admitting evidence of an offense similar to the one for which he was on trial; and (2) refusing to set aside the verdict because the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.

The evidence shows that on January 26, 1968, the defendant, identifying himself as James Sandford, cashed a check at the Gem International Tire Store in Richmond.The check was drawn on the Virginia National Bank of Dillwyn, payable to cash in the amount of $458, and purportedly drawn by W. F. Foster.Foster's signature had been forged.

'Shortly thereafter'the defendant again appeared in the store and attempted to cash another check in the amount of $150.He identified himself to Harold Shropshire, the store manager, as A. G. Berkley, the drawer of the check.Shropshire, believing that the defendant was the same man who had cashed the $458 check, asked him to wait in his office.He then called the Berkley residence from another office.While Shropshire was calling the Berkley residence the defendant left the store.

Defendant admitted that he cashed the $458 check; that he attempted to cash the one for $150; and that he had falsely identified himself on both occasions.He stated that he received the checks from three Sandford brothers, who were in the used tire business, and that he did not know the payors' signatures were forged.

Defendant contends that the evidence relating to his attempt to cash the $150 check, which occurred after the offense for which he was being tried, was inadmissible.

We have many times held that evidence showing or tending to show the guilt of an accused of offenses committed at other times is inadmissible when its purpose is to show the character of the accused or his disposition to commit an offense similar to that charged; but evidence of other offenses is admissible when used 'to show motive, intent, or guilty knowledge, or when it is connected with or leads up to the offense for which the accused is on trial.'Roy v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 722, 726, 62 S.E.2d 902, 903...