People v. Lane
| Decision Date | 21 August 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1061 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Herbert LANE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
James Herbert Lane, in pro. per.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of issuing a check without sufficient funds, Pen.Code, § 476a. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison and appeals from the judgment of conviction and 'from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial.' The record does not show that such a motion was made and, therefore, the purported appeal from the order denying his 'motion for a new trial' is dismissed.
On or about May 8, 1955, Hubert Watkins, a salesman and assistant manager in charge of the used car department for Marvin K. Brown, Cadillac and Oldsmobile, in San Diego, sold a 1954 Cadillac convertible to the defendant. In this transaction Watkins took a 1951 Chevrolet panel truck in trade as a partial down payment on the Cadillac and the defendant gave him a check made out to Marvin K. Brown, a corporation, in the sum of $1,026. The balance of the purchase price of the Cadillac was provided for in a General Motors contract. The check was drawn on the Security Trust and Savings Bank of San Diego. It was signed by the defendant in the presence of Watkins and was dated 'May 9'.
Watkins testified that there was no discussion with the defendant about postdating the check, or otherwise, except that he heard the defendant call someone on the 'phone and ask if there was enough money to cover the check. Defendant told Watkins that he was calling his partner. However, defendant's partner denied that he had had such a conversation with the defendant. Watkins testified further that the defendant then signed the check, the transaction was completed, and the automobile delivered to the defendant. The check was deposited in the bank on May 11, 1955. The defendant did not have sufficient funds in or credit with said bank to cover the check and it was never paid.
The defendant took the stand to testify in his own behalf and admitted that he knew he did not have funds in the bank to cover the check. He stated that he so informed Watkins and that he told Watkins he 'would put the funds in the bank to cover the check before it reached the bank.' Watkins denied that these statements were made to him and testified that the defendant did not ask him to hold the check and did not tell him that he, the defendant, did not have sufficient funds in the bank to cover the check.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings of the jury. In People v. Wellington, 85 Cal.App.2d 310, 313, 193 P.2d 30, 32, the essential elements of the offense denounced by section 476a of the Penal Code are stated as follows: (1) the intent to defraud, (2) the * * * drawing * * *, (3) of a check * * *, (4) upon a bank * * *, (5) a lack of sufficient funds or credit with the drawee at the time the check * * * is made * * *, and (6) knowledge on the part of the accused of such lack of funds or credit. An intent to defraud the person to whom the check was delivered is an essential element of the offense of issuing a check without sufficient funds. However, it must be and is the subject of evidence in the same manner and to the same extent, depending upon the same general rules of procedure, as is any other necessary fact in the case, and is a question of fact for the jury or court to determine. The proof of such intent may be substantial evidence if the circumstances are such as to reasonably justify an inference of the intent. People v. Oster, 129 Cal.App.2d 688, 692, 278 P.2d 39.
From the evidence adduced at the trial in the instant action the jury was justified in drawing the inference that the defendant intended to defraud the Marvin K. Brown Company and its agent, Watkins, when he drew his check and gave it to Watkins with knowledge that he, the defendant, did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank for the payment of the check upon its presentation. People v. Brown, 72 Cal.App.2d 171, 720, 165 P.2d 707.
Defendant, in propria persona, first contends that he is entitled to a reversal of the judgment 'bec...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...Code. In re Razutis, 35 Cal.2d 532, 534, 219 P.2d 15, and cases there cited. It comes too late now.' In People v. Lane, 144 Cal.App.2d 87 at page 90, 300 P.2d 321, at page 323, the court considered a similar contention as 'Defendant, in propria persona, first contends that he is entitled to......
-
People v. Wilkins
...1002; People v. Garris, 120 Cal.App.2d 617, 618, 261 P.2d 765; People v. Resum, 120 Cal.App.2d 618, 619, 261 P.2d 765; People v. Lane, 144 Cal.App.2d 87, 90, 300 P.2d 321. Our reading of the record does not disclose any irregularity or error as to either case, and the appellant has pointed ......
-
People v. Hollins
...whose duty it was to present a record affirmatively disclosing any error or denial of rights of which he complains. People v. Lane, 144 Cal.App.2d 87, 90, 300 P.2d 321, 323, is in point. It says: 'Defendant, in propria persona, first contends that he is entitled to a reversal of the judgmen......
-
Galbreath v. State, A89A1545
...supplied.) 32 AmJur2d, False Pretenses, § 86, p. 296; compare State v. Ramsbottom, 89 Idaho 1, 402 P.2d 384 and People v. Lane, 144 Cal.App.2d 87, 300 P.2d 321 (DCA Calif.). We find these principles can be applied to bad check offenses prosecuted under the authority of OCGA § 16-9-20(a). Mo......