State v. Bonefield
| Decision Date | 21 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 5762-III-3,5762-III-3 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Edward D. BONEFIELD, Appellant. |
Frank W. Jenny, Michael Everett's Law Office, Grandview, for appellant.
Curtis Ludwig, Pros. Atty., David R Needy, Deputy Pros. Atty., Kennewick, for respondent.
Edward D. Bonefield appeals his convictions of first degree theft 1 and unlawful issuance of bank checks. 2 He contends evidence of a prior forgery conviction was not admissible for impeachment purposes and that the evidence was insufficient to convict. We affirm.
Between October and December 1982, Bonefield advertised in the Tri-City Herald and the Giant Nickle that he would sell wood at $50 per cord ($40 for senior citizens), 3-cord minimum. Approximately 79 witnesses testified they paid Bonefield deposits for cord wood they never received. These down payments varied from $20 to $320.
On December 8, 1982, Bonefield purchased airplane tickets from a Benton County travel agency; his check for $1,048 failed to clear for insufficient funds. A Peoples Bank officer testified Bonefield had been overdrawn several times in December, and she had informed him the bank was going to close his account. She further testified the bank did close Bonefield's account on December 8, 1982; his closing balance was $365.
The trial court ruled Bonefield's prior forgery conviction was admissible for impeachment purposes under ER 609(a)(2). Bonefield admitted the prior conviction on cross examination.
Bonefield first contends forgery is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, therefore the trial court should not have admitted evidence of his prior conviction. ER 609(a)(2) provides:
For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross examination but only if the crime ... involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.
Crimes of dishonesty or false statement under ER 609(a)(2) are those involving "crimen falsi". State v. Burton, 101 Wash.2d 1, 676 P.2d 975 (1984).
At common law, the term "crimen falsi" referred to "crimes of infamy". State v. Payne, 6 Wash. 563, 34 P. 317 (1893).
[P]ersons are rendered infamous ... by having been convicted of forgery, perjury, subornation of perjury, suppression of testimony by bribery, or conspiracy to procure the absence of a witness, or other conspiracy, to accuse one of a crime, and barratry. And from these decisions it may be deduced, that the "crimen falsi" of the Common Law not only involves the charge of falsehood, but also is one which may injuriously affect the administration of justice, by the introduction of falsehood and fraud.
(Footnotes omitted.) 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 520, at 730 (rev. 1979). Accord, Black's Law Dictionary 446-47 (4th rev. ed. 1968).
(Italics ours.) State v. Burton, supra 101 Wash.2d at 7, 676 P.2d 975.
Forgery involves falsifying a written instrument or uttering a forged instrument with intent to defraud. RCW 9A.60.020(1). We hold it remains a crime of dishonesty or false statement under State v. Burton, supra. Accord, State v. Jones, 101 Wash.2d 113, 123, 677 P.2d 131 (1984) (dictum). Because Bonefield's forgery conviction was admissible under ER 609(a)(2), the trial court need not have engaged in the ER 609(a)(1) balancing test. State v. Jones, supra at 117-18, 677 P.2d 131.
Bonefield contends pro se the evidence was insufficient to convict him of either count. The test is whether, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, any rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). Under the facts and statutes set forth herein, and the unchallenged jury instructions, there was sufficient evidence. We note the State may aggregate the amounts lost in a series of transactions due to a common scheme or plan, "in determining the degree of theft involved". RCW 9A.56.010(12)(c); State v. Barton, 28 Wash.App. 690, 626 P.2d 509, rev. denied, 95 Wash.2d 1027 (1981).
The convictions are affirmed.
1 RCW 9A.56.020 provides in pertinent part:
RCW 9A.56.030 provides in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gilbert
...scheme or plan. This is a generally accepted principle of law. State v. Pena, 15 Or.App. 582, 516 P.2d 761 (1973); State v. Bonefield, 37 Wash.App. 878, 683 P.2d 1129 (1984). But the principle applies only where, as illustrated by Lloyd, the value of several interconnected petit thefts can ......
-
State v. Johnson
...1976 forgery conviction was a crime of the class crimen falsi, and thus was admissible under ER 609(a)(2). State v. Bonefield, 37 Wash.App. 878, 881, 683 P.2d 1129, review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1014 (1984); see State v. Burton, 101 Wash.2d 1, 7, 676 P.2d 975 Defendant's 1975 conviction for fe......
-
State v. Atterton
...the statute or the common law because each involved a different victim, place, and time. The State, however, relies on State v. Bonefield, 37 Wash.App. 878, 683 P.2d 1129, review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1014 (1984). In that case, the defendant accepted deposits of $20.00 to $320.00 from approxi......
-
State v. McLean
...appeal. One of the prior convictions was for first degree forgery which is per se admissible under ER 609(a)(2). See State v. Bonefield, 37 Wash.App. 878, 683 P.2d 1129, review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1014 In his brief, McLean indicates that he cannot quarrel with the admission of his prior for......