Sanford v. State

Decision Date26 January 1971
Docket NumberNo. 768S113,768S113
PartiesJames William SANFORD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Ralph L. Jewell, Columbus, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Former Atty. Gen., Murray West, Former Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GIVAN, Judge.

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.

'Whoever falsely makes, or assists in making, defaces, destroys, alters, forges, counterfeits, prints, or photographs, or causes to be falsely made, defaced, destroyed, altered, forged, counterfeited, printed or photographed, any record or authentic matter of a public nature, deed, will, codicil, lease, bond, covenant, writing obligatory, bank bill or note, check, bill of exchange, or any acceptance or indorsement of any bill of exchange, promissory note for the payment of money or other property, or any post note, acquittance or receipt either for money or property, or any acquittance, release or discharge of any debt, account, action, suit, demand or other thing, real or personal, or any order, warrant or request for the payment of money, or any auditor's warrant, treasury note, county order, city order, indorsement of any promissory note, draft, or order or assignment of any bond, writing obligatory, or promissory note for money or property, or any order or draft for the payment of money or property, or any lawful brand on a tobacco leaf, bacon or pork cask, lard keg or barrel, salt barrel or hay bale, or any ticket, check, order, coupon receipt for fare or pass, printed, written, lithographed or engraved, issued by any railroad or other transportation company or by the manager, lessee, agent or receiver thereof, or any plat, draft or survey of land, or transfer or assurance of money, stock, goods, chattels, or other property whatever, or any letter of attorney, or any power or authority to receive money, or to receive and transfer stock or annuities, or to let, lease, dispose of, alien or convey any goods or chattels, lands or tenements, or other estate, real or personal, certificate of a justice of the peace or other public officer, or any other instrument in writing, with intent to defraud any person, body politic or corporate, or utters or publishes as true any such instrument or matter, knowing the same to be false, defaced, altered, forged,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Green v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 27, 1973
    ...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
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 22, 1979
    ...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
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 17, 1987
    ...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
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 15, 1980
    ...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.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT