State v. Cordaro

• Decision Date: 13 March 1928
• Docket Number: No. 38946.,38946.
• Citation: 218 N.W. 477,206 Iowa 347
• Parties: STATE v. CORDARO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

206 Iowa 347

218 N.W. 477

STATE

v.CORDARO.

No. 38946.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 13, 1928.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; W. G. Bonner, Judge.

Trial on an indictment accusing the defendant of the crime of uttering a forged instrument. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and judgment was entered, committing the defendant to the penitentiary at Ft. Madison, Iowa, for an indeterminate period not to exceed 15 years, and that he pay a fine of $1,000 and costs. The defendant appeals. Affirmed.Vernon W. Lynch and Parsons & Mills, all of Des Moines, for appellant.

John Fletcher, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DE GRAFF, J.

The indictment charged that the defendant did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously utter and publish a forged instrument with intent then and there to defraud, in that:

“The said Joe Cordaro on or about the 17th day of December, A. D. 1924, in the county of Polk, in the state of Iowa, having in his possession a certain instrument, to wit, a check with an indorsement thereon purporting to be that of one Orpha Link, said indorsement being false and forged, and said defendant knowing the same to be false and forged, said check and indorsement being in words and figures as follows, to wit:

No. B 11545.

C. E. Erickson Company, Incorporated,

Manufacturers of Advertising Specialties.

Des Moines, Iowa, Dec. 17, 1924.

Pay to the order of Orpha Link, No. 51, $42.63, exactly forty–two dollars sixty–three cents.

Pay roll account.

To the Iowa National Bank, 33––3, Des Moines, Iowa.

C. E. Erickson Company, Inc.,

By I. M. Bridges.”

On the back is indorsed the following:

“Orpha Link.

J. Cordaro.”

We turn to the assignment of propositions on which the appellant predicates reversible error.

[1] I. The first assignment reads: The court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial. This assignment is fatally defective, and raises no question for consideration on appeal. State v. Vandewater, 203 Iowa, 94, 212 N. W. 339;State v. Lambertti (Iowa) 215 N. W. 752;State v. Gibson (Iowa) 214 N. W. 743;State v. Gill, 202 Iowa, 242, 210 N. W. 120.

[2] II. A second error is predicated on the overruling of the objections to Exhibits H to L, inclusive. Exhibits H to K, inclusive, are checks which had the same origin, were originated for the same purpose, and were a part of the same general scheme of the defendant in defrauding his employer, the C. E. Erickson Company, Incorporated. Exhibit L was a genuine check received and cashed by the payee, Myrtle Forbes, an employee of the Erickson Company. The offer of Exhibit L was objected to as immaterial. It may have been, but clearly no prejudice resulted from its introduction.

[3] The objection to the offer of Exhibits H to K, inclusive, is that the purported payees are different parties than the payee in the check Exhibit A upon which the indictment is based, and that the time is too remote, and “seeking and tending to establish a crime other than the crime set forth in the indictment.” It is true, as contended by appellant, that these checks, H to K, inclusive, could only be received in evidence in aid of proof of the intent on the part of the defendant to defraud in passing the check Exhibit A, upon which the indictment is based. It is obvious that this evidence did tend to establish a fixed purpose or design on the part of the accused of which the particular offense charged is but one of a series. This evidence tended to prove that the defendant had improvised a methodical scheme whereby he intended to defraud the Erickson Company by “padding” the pay roll over which he had complete charge. These checks had been drawn by the defendant, payable to persons not then in the employ of the Erickson Company and to whom no wages were then due. They were never delivered to the payees named in said checks, but were indorsed and cashed by the defendant. The trial court correctly ruled the admissibility of these exhibits under the principle stated in State v. Baugh, 200 Iowa, 1225, 206 N. W. 250. The purpose of appellant to defraud his employer by issuing a series of pay checks to different persons at different times is clearly established. This evidence bears on the intent of the defendant in the commission of the offense for which he was indicted and prosecuted.

III. A third assignment of error has to do with rulings of the trial court on objections to certain testimony offered by the state. It appears that the scheme of the defendant was discovered by his employer at the time (August 15, 1926) the defendant prepared his last pay roll and submitted to the treasurer of the corporation the pay checks to be signed and returned to the defendant for distribution among the various employees, more than 200 in number. The checks known in the record as “Exhibits O to Y” are the checks that bore the names of persons, as payees, who were not on the pay roll of August 15, 1926. The defendant was confronted with the information that his employer had secured from an investigation of the books and the clock card used in the office and from other sources, and when so confronted he made an admission of his irregularities. This was on the 16th day of August, 1926.

E. R. Erickson, an officer of the corporation, testified:

“Mr. Rice, Mr. Bridges, and myself and Mr. Cordaro were present; had the checks at that meeting. We showed them to Cordaro at that time. After we found that these checks should not have been made, we called him into the office and asked him what he knew about it. He simply said he was guilty. Mr. Rice (an officer of the corporation) went out and got the records and Mr. Cordaro helped us check up the names that he recognized on the pay roll. We went back for about a year. We asked him if that was all and he assured us that was all that had been written, and said that he thought so. It amounted to pretty close to $3,000. The only thing he said about the checks that were drawn was that he cashed them. Mr. Cordaro had charge of the check books or the record of checks in our office part of the time. He distributed the checks to the employees. Cordaro was back after this conversation the next day and was going to try to make good. He wanted us to give him a chance. He could not raise the money, so we gave him until the next day to see what he could do. The next day he said that $2,000 was all he could raise. He made the remark that we could take it or leave it.”

The defendant did in fact return to the company $2,000 in cash.

Mr. Rice testified:

“These Exhibits O to Y, inclusive, I got out of the last pay roll that Cordaro had drawn up for signature, and voided them by cutting a slot in the signature space. I was the one that called Cordaro to the office and told him that there were irregularities in the pay roll checks and that I wanted him to explain, and his answer was that ‘I am guilty,’ without even any further questioning about it. I have seen Exhibits A (the check in question) and B before. We first discussed them on the check up. I recognize only one indorsement on these checks ...