State v. Jones
Decision Date | 05 April 1933 |
Docket Number | 5382 |
Citation | 20 P.2d 614,81 Utah 503 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. JONES |
Appeal from District Court, First District, Box Elder County; M. C Harris, Judge.
Robert Jones was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
REVERSED, and REMANDED, with directions.
K. H Malan, of Tremonton, for appellant.
Joseph Chez, Attorney General, and John D. Rice, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
Defendant was convicted of forgery and appeals. The information, omitting formal parts, is as follows:
The evidence shows that defendant, on June 5, 1932, went to the service station operated by Edgar Winchester at Tremonton, Utah, and asked him to cash a $ 15 check. Winchester asked whose check it was and defendant answered, "It sure was George Eberhardt's check." Winchester said if it was Geo. Eberhardt's check he would cash it, and gave defendant $ 15 and took the check. The check went to the bank and was returned with a notation that it was forgery. Geo. Eberhardt testified the signature on the check was not his signature, and that he did not sign it.
After the district attorney made his opening statement to the jury and before the introduction of any evidence, defendant moved the court for a "dismissal of that part of the complaint which charges the making in view of the statement of State's counsel" because of failure of the district attorney to indicate he would produce testimony tending to show the making or forging of the check by the defendant. The motion was denied. At the close of the state's case a motion was made for a directed verdict of not guilty on the ground, among others, that there was no evidence to support the charge of making of a false check. The motion was denied. The court instructed the jury that there was no evidence that the defendant made or forged the check, and submitted the case to the jury on the question whether or not the defendant knowingly uttered and passed the check as genuine, knowing the same to be false and forged, for the purpose and with intent to defraud Winchester. The jury returned a verdict finding "the defendant guilty of forgery, a felony, as charged in the information herein." Refusal of the court to grant defendant's motions is assigned as error, and the verdict is assailed as being contrary to the court's instruction and as not responsive to the offense charged in the information. All these averments are answered by a consideration of the nature of the crime charged. The statute, Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 8270, as far as here applicable, is as follows:
"Every person who, with intent to defraud another, falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any * * * check * * * or utters, publishes, passes, or attempts to pass as true or genuine any of the above-named false, altered, forged, or counterfeited matters, * * * knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited, with intent to prejudice, damage, or defraud any person; * * * is guilty of forgery."
It will thus be seen that the crime of forgery as defined in this section may consist of the making of a false instrument, or the passing of an instrument known to be false, or both. Where several acts are enumerated alternatively in the statute, the doing of each one being prohibited under penalty, they may be charged conjunctively as one offense, when not repugnant to each other, and especially is this so when each of the acts charged is committed with respect to the same instrument. The significance of such a statute is well stated in People v. Frank, 28 Cal. 507, as follows:
In 1 Bishop's New Criminal Procedure, p. 355, it is said:
See, also, 12 R. C. L. 159; 26 C. J. 956; People v. Driggs, 14 Cal.App. 507, 112 P. 577; State v. Rowen, 104 Ore. 1, 200 P. 901; Selby v. State, 161 Ind. 667, 69 N.E. 463.
The crime charged is one, whether sustained by proof of making or forging the check, or by knowingly uttering or passing a forged check with intent to defraud, or by proof of both such acts, hence the verdict of guilty of forgery is responsive to the crime charged in the information. Since only one offense was charged, the information was not open to attack on grounds of duplicity or subject to a motion to strike, or to require election.
There was no material variance between allegation and proof with respect to the check alleged to have been forged where the check offered in evidence showed an indorsement on the back. "Robert Jones," while in the information such indorsement is not set forth. Under the authorities this is not a material or fatal variance where the charged false making has reference to the signature on the check and not to the indorsement on the back. 26 C. J. 951; State v. Curley, 13 Okla. Crim. 25, 161 P. 831; Cofer v. State, 107 Tex. Crim. 125, 295 S.W. 189; Walker v. State, 171 Ark. 375, 284 S.W. 36; Finn v. State, 127 Ark. 204, 191 S.W. 899; McGee v. State, 62 Tex. Crim. 358, 137 S.W. 686.
The court admitted in evidence for the purpose of comparison of handwriting an identification card bearing the signature of George Eberhardt written by him at about the same time as the alleged false check was made and passed. Defendant objected to the admission of the card that "it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gorham
...of forgery. The different acts defined by the statute as constituting forgery may be alleged in the same count or in separate counts. State v. Jones, supra; State Green, 89 Utah 437, 57 P.2d 750. A finding of guilty of the act described in the second count is not a finding of guilty of the ......
-
State v. Green
...the acts charged is committed with respect to the same instrument and the crime may be charged in one count or two counts. State v. Jones, 81 Utah 503, 20 P.2d 614; State v. Mitton, 37 Mont. 366, 96 P. 127 Am. St. Rep. 732; People v. Adler, 140 N.Y. 331, 35 N.E. 644; People v. Dole, 122 Cal......
-
State v. Jensen
... ... The ... complaint is in two counts, but such is only for convenience ... Executing a forged or fictitious endorsement and uttering an ... instrument knowing the same to contain such endorsement may ... be alleged in one count or in separate counts. State ... v. Jones , 81 Utah 503, 20 P.2d 614; State ... v. Green , 89 Utah 437, 57 P.2d 750; State ... v. Gorham , 93 Utah 274, 72 P.2d 656. The whole of ... the complaint must be taken together to see if the crime ... charged in the information is charged in the complaint. The ... first count of the ... ...
-
State v. Gonzalez
...authority from O'Neill. It is well established that one needs the authority of the person whose name is signed. See State v. Jones, 81 Utah 503, 20 P.2d 614, 617 (1933). It follows, therefore, that O'Neill could not confer valid authority to Gonzalez to sign Cotner's Moreover, we hold that ......