Scruggs v. State, 668S100
| Decision Date | 07 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 668S100,668S100 |
| Parties | Aaron Bernard SCRUGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Bruce R. Snyder, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, Murray West, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the crime of uttering a forged check. Trial was before the Court without the intervention of a jury. Upon a finding of guilty the appellant was sentenced for a term of not less than two (2) nor more than fourteen (14) years in the Indiana State Reformatory.
The sole assignment of error on appeal is the overruling of appellant's motion for new trial. The grounds assigned by the motion for new trial read as follows:
The evidence most favorable to the State is that a cashier of the Kroger Store in Southgate Shopping Center testified she remembered seeing the appellant come into the store sometime in the afternoon on January 26 or 27; that he came to her window and handed her a check. During the ensuing conversation concerning the check, the appellant told the cashier that another woman had placed the numbers on the back of the check. The cashier asked for the appellant's Driver's License, and he stated that he had none, but that he had a Registration Card, which he presented. The Registration Card bore the name of Raymond Oliver, which was the same name as the payee on the check. The numbers on the check were the same numbers as those on the Registration Card. The cashier informed the appellant that she would have to get on O.K. from the store manager and left her booth. When she returned, she told the appellant that the co-manager would be there shortly. After waiting a few minutes, the appellant asked for his identification and the check back. When he received them and started to leave, a detective attempted to stop him and the appellant fled the store.
Appellant was apprehended and returned to the store. The cashier testified that at no time did she see the appellant write on the check.
There was evidence that the check in question was one which had been stolen from the Spatt Plumbing and Heating Company on or about January 27, 1967.
Louis A. Spatt, President of the Spatt Plumbing and Heating Company, testified that the check in question was written on one of his company's checks, but that the signature appearing on the check as Louis A. Spatt was not his signature. He further testified that he did not know who had signed the check.
The statute under which the appellant was convicted reads in part as follows:
'Whoever * * * utters * * * any * * * instrument * * *, knowing the same to be false, defaced, altered, forged, counterfeited,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Angel v. State
...is accomplished when a person presents the same for payment. Bush v. State, 1968 (251 Ind. 84), 237 N.E.2d 584 Scruggs v. State, 1969 (252 Ind. 249), 247 N.E.2d 213.' 'DEFENDANT'S The defendant would object to State's Instruction No. 4 for the following reasons: It is confusing and misleadi......
-
Little v. State
...would commit the crime except for the intervention of another person or some other extraneous factor."4 See, e. g., Scruggs v. State, 252 Ind. 249, 247 N.E.2d 213, 215 (1969); People v. Brandon, 46 Mich.App. 484, 208 N.W.2d 214, 218 (1973); United States v. Holmes, 453 F.2d 950 (10th Cir. 1......
-
Reid v. State, 2--1172A105
...for payment knowing that it is forged, with a representation that it is genuine, and with an intent to defraud. Scruggs v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 249, 247 N.E.2d 213; Bush v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 84, 237 N.E.2d The intent to defraud is an essential element to sustain a conviction for the ......
-
McHaney v. State, 3--672A12
...sufficient conduct to warrant the jury to believe that the appellant intended to cash a forged instrument.' See also: Scruggs v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 249, 247 N.E.2d 213, wherein the above language was quoted with In the instant case, the facts contained in the record before us most favor......