Sanford v. State
Decision Date | 26 January 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 768S113,768S113 |
Parties | James William SANFORD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ralph L. Jewell, Columbus, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Former Atty. Gen., Murray West, Former Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged with the crime of uttering a forged instrument. However, the instructions given to the jury, including a form of verdict, were all directed to the crime of forgery, and the verdict rendered by the jury was guilty of forgery 'as charged in the affidavit.' Appellant was sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for not less than two nor more than fourteen years and fined in the sum of $10.
The crimes of forgery and uttering a forged instrument are both set out in Burns' Ind. Stat., 1956 Repl., § 10--2102, which reads as follows.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green v. State
...sponte Consideration in Appellate Review, 27 Fordham L.R. 477, 503, 506; Wright, 3 Fed.Prac. & Proc. 372, § 856; Sanford v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 542, 544, 265 N.E.2d 701; Summers v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 551, 230 N.E.2d 320, 11 Ind.Dec. 1 It is Cambridge's reference to this statement by ......
-
McFarland v. State, 2-177A33
...robbery under an information which charged Attempted armed robbery. Error such as this cannot be ignored. 7 See, Sanford v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 542, 265 N.E.2d 701, 703, citing Summers v. State, (1967) 248 Ind. 551, 230 N.E.2d Conviction of an offense neither charged nor included within ......
-
Maynard v. State
...is rendered on a particular offense which is not the same as the offense charged reversal usually is warranted. See Sanford v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 542, 265 N.E.2d 701. The rationale of this rule may be simply summarized as providing "(a) an affidavit must charge in direct and unmistakabl......
-
Addis v. State
...Court reviewed other criminal statutes and held a single statutory section could, in fact, provide multiple offenses. Sanford v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 542, 265 N.E.2d 701 (Although set forth within the same statute, forgery and uttering a forged instrument are separate and distinct crimes.......