Reeves v. State, 52322
| Decision Date | 02 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52322,No. 1,52322,1 |
| Parties | J. H. REEVES v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Henrietta E. Turnquest, Columbus, for appellant.
William F. Lee, Jr., Dist. Atty., Newnan, for appellee.
Defendant was indicted on three counts of forgery in the first degree, tried before a jury, and convicted of all counts. He appeals. Held:
1. Several enumerations concern the overruling of defendant's motion for directed verdicts of acquittal and the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions for first degree forgery.
Defendant's employer testified that he did not sign or prepare any of the three checks which were payable on his account and which bore his purported signature. The State's handwriting expert compared the signatures on the checks with defendant's handwriting exemplar. She found no significant differences between the writings and concluded that the checks and the comparative sample were written by the same person. The county sheriff testified that the comparative handwriting exemplar was prepared in his presence by defendant. Another witness identified defendant as the person who presented for payment the check representing Court II of the indictment. The State introduced no evidence as to the delivery or uttering of the other two checks.
' A person commits forgery in the first degree when, with intent to defraud, be knowingly makes, alters or possesses any writing in a fictitious name or in such manner that the writing as made or altered check representing Count II of the indictment. person, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority and utters or delivers such writing.' Code § 26-1701. (Emphasis supplied). It is clear from the language of our penal statute that '(u)ttering or delivering the writing is an essential element of forgery in the first degree. . . .' Ward v. State, 123 Ga.App. 216, 217, 180 S.E.2d 280, 281.
Since the State presented no evidence tending to show that defendant uttered or delivered the two checks represented by Count I and Count III of the indictment, defendant's convictions of first degree forgery under these counts are unsupported by sufficient evidence and cannot stand. Compare Smith v. State, 138 Ga.App. 226, 225 S.E.2d 744. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for directed verdicts of acquittal on these two counts. Merino v. State, 230 Ga. 604, 198 S.E.2d 311.
The evidence with respect to Count II of the indictment in sufficient to support the jury's verdict and will not be disturbed by this court on review.
2. Defendant contends that he was arrested without a warrant in violation of Code § 27-207 and that the handwriting sample taken from him shortly after this arrest should have been suppressed as a fruit of the prior illegality. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant's arrest was illegal, we nevertheless conclude that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to his handwriting so as to invoke the Fourth Amendment's sanctions.
In United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67, the Supreme Court ruled that voice exemplars were not within the scope of the Fourth Amendment protections. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGowan v. State, 69233
..."Samples of my handwriting have been voluntarily furnished. No threats or promises were made to me." See also Reeves v. State, 139 Ga.App. 214(2), 228 S.E.2d 201 (1976). We find no merit in this enumeration of 3. Appellant assigns error to the trial court's instruction to Ms. Shooks, a relu......
-
Lowe v. State
...handwriting sample constitute a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Reeves v. State, 139 Ga.App. 214, 215, 228 S.E.2d 201 (1976); Hudson v. State, 188 Ga.App. 684, 374 S.E.2d 212 (1988); State v. Armstead, 152 Ga.App. 56, 262 S.E.2d 233 (1979); ......
-
Campbell v. State, A97A1427
...of his voice, any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world.' [Cit.]" Reeves v. State, 139 Ga.App. 214, 215-216(2), 228 S.E.2d 201 (1976). Nor can a voice exemplar be a violation of the Sixth Amendment right against self-incrimination. " 'Requiring a su......
-
Harrison v. State, 58284
...1 of the indictment authorized the jury to find appellant guilty of first degree forgery as to Count 1. See, e. g., Reeves v. State, 139 Ga.App. 214(1), 228 S.E.2d 201; Padula v. State, 119 Ga.App. 562(3), 167 S.E.2d 696. See also Hitchcock v. State, 146 Ga.App. 470, 471, 246 S.E.2d 477, no......