State v. Goranson
| Decision Date | 18 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38120,38120 |
| Citation | 408 P.2d 7,67 Wn.2d 456 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Wallie G. GORANSON and Robert Eugene Huson, Respondents. |
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Bruce W. Rudeen, Deputy Pros., Atty., Seattle for appellant.
Daniel G. Goodwin, Seattle, for respondents.
*
Defendants were brought to trial on the charge of first degree forgery. At the conclusion of the state's case, the prosecution was dismissed for failure of proving the corpus delicti. The state appealed.
In the early part of November, 1964, the Northwest Filter Company was burglarized; a check protector and 15 checks were stolen. This information was given to the Seattle Police Department, which alerted several stores, including Frederick & Nelson's. The checks reported as stolen included No. 4158.
On November 12, 1964, defendant Goranson took check No. 4158 to the cashier's cage at Frederick & Nelson's. On the face of the check, the payee was 'Wallie G. Goranson' (typewritten), the amount was $112.52, and it was signed 'J. W. Scott.' This check bore the name of the Northwest Filter Company on its face and had been perforated with the company name by a check protector. The cashier recognized the check as being among those reported stolen. She asked Goranson for identification and to endorse the check. She then verified that the check number was among those reported stolen and notified the manager of the credit division. Goranson was asked to accompany the store detective and the manager to an office, and the police were called.
The next day Goranson voluntarily made a written statement which said that the other defendant, Huson, approached him with a foolproof technique of cashing checks; that the two went to the Y.M.C.A. where Huson typed Goranson's name on a few checks; that Huson signed the check in question as 'J. W. Scott;' that Huson awaited nearby while he went to Frederick & Nelson's to cash the check; and that he was taken into custody after presenting the check to a cashier for the purpose of cashing the same.
The following day Huson was arrested at his hotel room. Searching the room, the arresting officers found a check stub. At the police station, Huson made a voluntary oral statement. He stated that he had written the name of 'J. W. Scott' on the check; that Goranson had approached him with a method of cashing checks; that Goranson had typed his own name as payee; and that when Goranson did not return from Frederick & Nelson's, he tore the remaining checks into pieces and flushed them down a toilet.
As a witness, the state called F. W. Scott, an engineer for Northwest Filter Company, who testified that a burglary had occurred; that a report had been made to the police; that only four men worked for Northwest Filter, including himself, his uncle, George Scott, and two other named men who were authorized to sign checks; that he did not sign the check; that no person named 'J. W. Scott' worked at Northwest Filter; and that checks had been stolen but he could not identify No. 4158 as being one of them.
The state handwriting expert could not determine whether or not defendant Huson signed the check, but he did determine that defendant Goranson did not sign the check.
The state contends that it introduced sufficient independent evidence of the crime of forgery being committed to warrant the consideration of defendants' statements in sending the case to the jury.
Forgery is defined in State v. Lutes, 38 Wash.2d 475, 479, 230 P.2d 786 (1951), as "* * * the false making of an instrument, which purports on the face of it to be good and valid for the purposes for which it was created, with a design to defraud and person or persons. * * * "
RCW 9.44.010 includes in the definition of forgery the false signing of a party, real or fictitious.
Defendant Huson was charged under REW 9.44.020 which provides, Inter alia, that every person who, with intent to defraud, shall forge any check, shall be guilty of forgery in the first degree.
Defendant Goranson was charged under RCW 9.44.060, which provides:
Every person who, knowing the same to be forged or altered, and with intent to defraud, shall utter, offer, dispose of or put off as true, or have in his possession with intent so to utter, offer, dispose of or put off any forged writing, instrument or other thing, the false making, forging or altering of which is punishable as forgery, shall be guilty of forgery in the same degree as if he had forged the same.
From the above statutes, the corpus delicti to be established by the state is the crime of forgery. The principle of corpus delicti is stated in State v. Meyer, 37 Wash.2d 759, 763, 226 P.2d 204 (1951), as follows:
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cardenas-Flores
...521, 524, 96 P.2d 479 (1939) (defendant moved to dismiss at trial for failure to prove the alleged crime); State v. Goranson , 67 Wash.2d 456, 458-59, 408 P.2d 7 (1965) (dismissing the case for failure to prove corpus delicti at the close of State's evidence); Corbett , 106 Wash.2d at 571, ......
-
State v. Ryan
...P.2d 1102 (1978). The independent evidence need only establish a prima facie case that a crime has been committed. State v. Goranson, 67 Wash.2d 456, 460, 408 P.2d 7 (1965). The corpus delicti need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of the evidence, but a confe......
-
State v. Komoto
...indicating that the admissions were reliable. State v. Meyer, 37 Wash.2d 759, 763, 226 P.2d 204 (1951), and State v. Goranson, 67 Wash.2d 456, 459, 408 P.2d 7 (1965) (quoting Meyer, 37 Wash.2d at 763, 226 P.2d 204) establish that the identity of the person who has committed the crime is not......
-
State v. Espinoza
...the confession and the independent evidence. State v. Meyer, 37 Wash.2d 759, 763-64, 226 P.2d 204 (1951). See also State v. Goranson, 67 Wash.2d 456, 458-59, 408 P.2d 7 (1965). Corpus delicti consists of two elements: (1) an injury or loss and (2) someone's criminal act which caused it. Bre......