Rollie v. State

• Decision Date: 09 September 1963
• Docket Number: No. 5085,5085
• Citation: 370 S.W.2d 188,236 Ark. 853
• Parties: Alma ROLLIE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 188

370 S.W.2d 188

236 Ark. 853

Alma ROLLIE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. 5085.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Sept. 9, 1963.

A. M. Coates, Helena, for appellant.

Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., by Jerry L. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

HOLT, Justice.

The appellant was accused of the crimes of forgery and uttering in two separate informations which were consolidated for trial. The jury acquitted her in one case and convicted her in the other in which they assessed her punishment at two years in the State Penitentiary for forgery and another two years for uttering. From this jury verdict and the judgment of the Court the appellant brings this appeal.

The appellant alleges five assignments of error in her motion for a new trial. We group the first three assignments inasmuch as they question the sufficiency of the evidence. On appeal all the evidence submitted at the trial must be viewed in the light most favorable to a jury verdict and if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict it is our duty to sustain it. Ashcraft v. State, 208 Ark. 1089, 189 S.W.2d 374; Smith v. State, 222 Ark. 650, 262 S.W.2d 272.

The witness to whom it is alleged the defendant presented the questioned check testified that she had seen the defendant before and that she observed the appellant, Alma Rollie, endorse the name 'Vera Mae Wilson' on the check when the appellant made a purchase, receiving therefor certain articles and the balance in cash; that the appellant was in the store some fifteen to twenty minutes; that approximately fifteen minutes after the appellant left the store and after it was learned that possibly the crime of forgery and uttering had been committed she went out on the street and discovered the appellant and brought her back in the store, the appellant still having in her possession the purchased articles and some cash. The individual whose name was signed as the drawer of the check testified that it was not her signature and she had issued no such check. Vera Mae Wilson, whose name appeared on the check as the drawee, testified that she had received no such check, was due no such check and that she did not endorse it. The State also offered other evidence which is unnecessary to detail here. The appellant denied the accusations and contended that she knew nothing about it, thus presenting a question of fact for the determination of the jury. The evidence adduced in this case is not only sufficient but more than ample to support the verdict.

The appellant contends that the Court committed error in refusing to permit John Moye, Jr., a witness for the defendant, to testify that based upon his twenty-eight years experience in the banking business and being familiar with comparison of signatures, that in his opinion, after studying the endorsement and appellant's known handwriting, the appellant did not endorse the check in question. The general rule is well stated in 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, § 842, p. 706, as follows:

'There is no test by which one can determine with precision how much experience or knowledge of handwriting a witness must have in order to qualify as an expert for comparison. This problem is, generally speaking, left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.

'It is not essential to qualify one as an expert to testify to comparisons of handwritings that he have professional knowledge or that he has made such work a specialty. It is enough that he has been engaged in some business which calls for frequent comparisons of handwritings and that he has in fact been in the habit for a length of time of making such comparisons. Bank tellers and other bank officers and employees whose daily business and duties compel them to scrutinize and examine writings are competent experts respecting handwriting. * * *' [Emphasis added.]

In view of Mr. Moye's twenty-eight years of experience in the field of banking, during which time it appears he made frequent comparison of signatures, we perceive no reason why he would not be qualified to express his opinion on the subject of handwriting. However, in this case the appellant never offered sufficient proof to the Court that indicates she was prejudiced by the ruling of the Court. In answer to a question by appellant's counsel and the Court if he was 'able to tell' whether the endorsement 'Vera Mae Wilson' on the check was in the same handwriting as the known handwriting of the appellant, Mr. Moye replied that he could not do so. Therefore, we think there was no abuse of discretion by the Trial Court in the ruling on this point.

The most serious question presented to us is the alleged error of the Court in not declaring a mistrial...