Henderson v. State, 55316
| Decision Date | 31 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 55316,55316 |
| Citation | 245 S.E.2d 437,146 Ga.App. 114 |
| Parties | HENDERSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Champion & Erwin, William A. Erwin, Albany, for appellant.
William S. Lee, Dist. Atty., Hobart M. Hind, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of forgery in the first degree and he appeals. Held :
The check which was the subject of this prosecution was described in the indictment as a United States Treasury check bearing an identifying number, dated May 3, 1977, payable in the amount of $301.90 to Ernest E. Reno. Reno testified that he normally receives a United States Government Social Security check about the third of each month but did not receive his May, 1977 check. He was tendered state's Exhibit 1, and he testified that the signature endorsement appearing on the reverse of the exhibit "Erenest E. Reno" (sic) was not made by him nor did he authorize anyone else to endorse his name to this check. This exhibit appeared to be a treasury check of the same description as charged in the indictment. Other witnesses of the state established that defendant caused the same check to be cashed. One of defendant's own witnesses testified that he took this check out of a mailbox located on the same street Reno's residence was located. The defendant's objection to the admission of the check was overruled. His ground of objection was that the check was not shown to be an authenticated or genuine U. S. Treasury check. The objection was properly overruled. The exhibit appeared to be a U. S. Treasury check and from all the circumstances shown the trial court could conclude that it was a genuine check issued by the federal government. We do point out that it was not necessary to its admissibility that the state prove it to be a genuine check. The gravamen of the offense was that defendant without authority and with intent to defraud possessed a "writing" purportedly endorsed by others and uttered or delivered it. The state sustained its burden by showing a "writing" with the forged endorsements. Whether in fact the check was a counterfeit or genuine treasury check was not material.
The defendant in writing requested that the court charge the jury: " . . . I charge you that if a witness shall swear willfully and knowingly falsely, his testimony shall be disregarded entirely, unless corroborated by circumstances or other unimpeached evidence." The court while not giving this charge, which is taken from Code § 38-1806, did charge on impeachment of witnesses and on the contradictory statements of witnesses. Before this principle of total rejection with a duty to charge, will have application, it must manifestly appear not only that the witness has on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. State
...was properly before the trial court. A ritualistic tender of this evidence at the hearing was not necessary.Henderson v. State, 146 Ga.App. 114, 245 S.E.2d 437, 439–40 (1978).Moreover, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a trial court properly relied on an "unsigned, undated, and un......
-
Gellis v. B. L. I. Const. Co., Inc.
...the charge on the subject of impeachment and contradictory statements no reversible error has been shown." Henderson v. State, 146 Ga.App. 114(2), 245 S.E.2d 437. 10. IIT's Enumerations 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 52 concern either the failure of the trial court ......
-
Hightower v. General Motors Corp.
...a witness is subject to impeachment by proof of a conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. Henderson v. State, 146 Ga.App. 114(3), 245 S.E.2d 437 (1978). However, "[i]t is obvious that the General Assembly intended the first offender probation to have a different effect ......
-
LaPann v. State
...purportedly endorsed by others and "uttering" (offering directly or indirectly to the public) said writings. See Henderson v. State, 146 Ga.App. 114, 115(1), 245 S.E.2d 437; Johnson v. State, 158 Ga.App. 183, 184(1), 279 S.E.2d 483. Defendant admits issuing all these checks as a tax commiss......