State v. Flood

• Citation: 148 Iowa 146,127 N.W. 48
• Parties: STATE v. FLOOD.
• Decision Date: 07 July 1910
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

148 Iowa 146

127 N.W. 48

STATE

v.FLOOD.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 7, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Jesse A. Miller, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a conviction under an indictment charging him with uttering as true a forged instrument. Affirmed.McHenry & Graham, for appellant.

H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., C. W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Thos. J. Guthrie, Co. Atty., for the State.

McCLAIN, J.

The evidence for the prosecution tended to show that on March 13, 1909, the defendant offered as genuine to the Vim Company a check on the People's Savings Bank for $7, purporting to be signed by the Des Moines Dye Works and indorsed by Frank Mead, and received the amount of money called for by such check. The evidence tended to show that the entire check with the indorsement was forged by the defendant in pursuance of a general plan and conspiracy between defendant and one Hartshorn to make and pass forged checks for small amounts for the purpose of obtaining money thereon.

1. Substantially the only question raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction was that arising on the credibility of the evidence of an alibi testified to by defendant's parents and sisters, with whom he resided as a member of the family. The testimony of these witnesses was in direct conflict with that of witnesses for the state, who identified the defendant as the person passing the check, and it was also in conflict with the testimony of other witnesses for the state as to where defendant had been on two or three days preceding the passing of the check. In view of this conflict in the evidence, we cannot say that the jury was not fully justified in finding that the witnesses for defendant were mistaken as to the facts with reference to which they testified.

2. Over objection for the defendant, the prosecution was allowed to show that another check forged by defendant was passed by Hartshorn on another company. In view of the evidence tending to show a common plan and conspiracy between Hartshorn and defendant to pass forged checks, this evidence was admissible as against defendant. It is not necessary to cite authorities in support of the general proposition that, where the intent is material, other acts of the same character tending to show a common purpose and design to defraud may be proven, although such acts were committed by a coconspirator.No authorities are cited for appellant sustaining the proposition made in his...