State v. Keller, 584
Decision Date | 23 November 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 584,584 |
Citation | 268 N.C. 522,151 S.E.2d 56 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE, v. Marman Lee KELLER. |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Deputy Atty. Gen. Harry W. McGalliard for the State.
Llewellyn, McKenzie & Johnson by C. M. Llewellyn and Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Concord, for defendant appellant.
The defendant offered no evidence. Defendant Keller assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit made at the close of all the evidence.
The evidence for the State considered in its most favorable light and giving to the State every reasonable intendment thereon and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom (State v. Roux, 266 N.C. 555, 146 S.E.2d 654), shows the following: Claude Woodie is president of B & W Homes, Inc., a manufacturer of mobile homes. He uses in his business checks imprinted with the name of B & W Homes, Inc. About a year ago the office of his business was broken into, and half of a large check book was stolen. At the same time, a check-writing machine was stolen. The check-writing machine imprinted words and letters upon a check. 'B & W Homes, Inc.' is on the machine. (He was testifying at the April 1966 Session of Cabarrus County Superior Court, and each of the ten bills of indictment charges the offense was committed on 4 June 1965.) He did not sign any one of the checks set forth in the ten indictments, and he did not authorize any person to sign his name on any one of these ten checks. He spells his name 'Woodie' and not 'Woodi.' Defendant Keller never worked for B & W Homes, Inc.
Gary Wayne Edwards, a witness for the State testified:
Defendant Keller, Carl Benge, and Gary Wayne Edwards went down to the place of business of B & W Homes, Inc., to steal therefrom checks and a check protector, but the B & W Homes, Inc., was open and they could not be stolen that night. The following week end defendant Keller Benge, and Edwards met in a poolroom in North Kannapolis about seven o'clock. Edwards testified:
As the Attorney General accurately states in his brief, 'the above evidence sets the stage of the plot for Keller and others to forge the checks in question and to get them cashed.'
The State offered other evidence to this effect: Edwards saw defendants Keller and Jordan on 4 June 1965. Jordan gave Edwards and Benge some checks and two motor vehicle operator licenses. Edwards does not know definitely who made the checks up, and did not see a check-writing machine at any time. While Edwards and Benge were being given the checks and operator licenses, Keller was in a nearby restaurant. After Edwards and Benge got the checks and licenses from Jordan, Keller drove his (Edwards') dar from place to place in Kannapolis and waited while Edwards and Benge filled in, endorsed, and cashed the checks, and that the proceeds from the checks were pooled and divided equally between Edwards, Benge, Keller, and Jordan. On cross-examination Edwards testified in substance that Keller stayed in the restaurant while he and Benge talked to Jordan at his car, and that Jordan gave him some partially filled out checks and two driver licenses. He did not see Jordan make up any of the checks or the driver licenses, though the ink was still wet on the licenses.
Deputy Sheriff Tucker, a witness for the State, testified that after warning defendant Keller of his constitutional rights, Keller told him in substance as follows: He was driving Edwards' car that day in the Kannapolis area. He was taking Edwards and Benge from place to place, but did not know what they were doing. He learned that they were cashing checks. They split up the money from these checks, but he did not think the money was split equally;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McAllister
...elements necessary to constitute the crime of forgery. State v. Greenlee, 272 N.C. 651, 159 S.E.2d 22 (1968); State v. Keller, 268 N.C. 522, 151 S.E.2d 56 (1966); State v. Phillips, Supra; State v. Dixon, 185 N.C. 727, 117 S.E. 170 (1923). Here the court correctly charged on all the essenti......
-
State v. Matthews, 108
...commission is a principal in the second degree and is equally guilty with one who is a principal in the first degree. State v. Keller, 268 N.C. 522, 151 S.E.2d 56 (1966); State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E.2d 844 (1952). See also State v. Mitchell, 24 N.C.App. 484, 211 S.E.2d 645 Finally......
-
State v. Williams, 100
...is not liable for the criminal acts of another if he did not participate in the crimes either directly or indirectly. State v. Keller, 268 N.C. 522, 151 S.E.2d 56 (1966). A person is a party to an offense, however, if he either (1) actually commits the offense or (2) does some act which for......
-
State v. Brown
...and (3) the instrument must be apparently capable of effecting a fraud. State v. Greenlee, 272 N.C. 651, 159 S.E.2d 22; State v. Keller, 268 N.C. 522, 151 S.E.2d 56; State v. Phillips, 256 N.C. 445, 124 S.E.2d 146; State v. Diggs, 6 N.C.App. 732, 171 S.E.2d 230. Defendant does not challenge......