Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 27 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--1274A306,2--1274A306 |
| Parties | Alonzo JOHNSON, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Theodore M. Koch, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The defendant, Alonzo Johnson, was found guilty as charged of the crime of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: uttering a forged instrument. This appeal is addressed only to the sufficiency of the evidence, it being charged that the State failed to prove the elements of knowledge of falsity and intent to defraud, both of which are essential to a conviction.
The evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, discloses that on the evening of April 14, 1973, the defendant, Alonzo Johnson, met with Robert Hudson concerning some fifty dollars the defendant owed Mr. Hudson. The defendant told Mr. Hudson he would pay him the money he owed him, but a check the defendant possessed would have to be cashed first. The two men, the defendant and Mr. Hudson, then left together in the same car in hope of cashing the check at the State Pharmacy, located at 1668 East Raymond Street, Indianapolis, as was suggested by Mr. Hudson.
Upon arriving at the State Pharmacy, the defendant asked Mr. Hudson to cash the check for him. The defendant told Mr. Hudson the check was made payable to one William Johnson, whom the defendant claimed to be his brother. The drawer of the check was Carl Jordan, on a check from the account of Jordan Cabinet Company. The defendant also gave Mr. Hudson the identification cards of William Johnson so that Mr. Hudson could cash the check at the State Pharmacy.
Mr. Hudson, upon cashing the check and returning with the money, received from cashing the check $123.48, gave the money to the defendant, who in turn, gave $50.00 to Mr. Hudson.
State Pharmacy then sent the check to the bank to be deposited, only to be notified by Merchants National Bank that the check had been forged, since there was no Carl Jordan who was authorized to sign the checks of the Jordan Brothers Cabinet Company. The check that had been cashed was one of a number of blank checks that had been stolen from the company.
Officer William Schlosser of the Indianapolis Police Department was then assigned to the case. By acquiring the regiscope picture of Mr. Hudson and the check, he was able to trace Mr. Hudson to his residence. Mr. Hudson subsequently informed the police of the defendant's part in cashing the check.
This court will not, on appeal, weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. When the sufficiency of the evidence is raised as an issue upon appeal, the court will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State, together with all logical and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. The conviction will be affirmed if, from that viewpoint, there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of the facts could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. McAfee v. State (1973) Ind., 291 N.E.2d 554; Hopper v. State (1974), Ind.App., 314 N.E.2d 98.
The elements of the crime of uttering a forged instrument have been defined as:
". . . the offering of a forged instrument, knowing it to be such, with a representation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Survance v. State
...N.E.2d at 573; Woods, 413 N.E.2d at 576; Patterson v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 469, 478, 386 N.E.2d 936, 942; Johnson v. State, (1975) 164 Ind.App. 263, 265, 328 N.E.2d 456, 458. Where the sufficiency of such evidence is in question, as the reviewing court, we examine it carefully, "not for t......
-
Gresham v. State, 1-780A194
...a forged instrument, knowing it to be such, with a representation that it is genuine, and with an intent to defraud. Johnson v. State (1975) 164 Ind.App. 263, 328 N.E.2d 456; Sonafrank v. State (1975) 163 Ind.App. 141, 322 N.E.2d 719; Buckley v. State (1975) 163 Ind.App. 113, 322 N.E.2d 113......
-
Moses v. State
...doubt. McAfee v. State (1973), 259 Ind. 687, 291 N.E.2d 554; Lewis v. State (1976), Ind.App., 346 N.E.2d 754; Johnson v. State (1975), Ind.App., 328 N.E.2d 456. The defendants urge that the evidence fails to show any criminal intent on their part to commit this crime. They assert that this ......
-
Freeman v. State
...N.E.2d at 573; Woods, 413 N.E.2d at 576; Patterson v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 469, 478, 386 N.E.2d 936, 942; Johnson v. State, (1975) 164 Ind.App. 263, 265, 328 N.E.2d 456, 458. See also Perkins v. State (1985), Ind., 483 N.E.2d 1379. There was more than adequate evidence before the jury fro......