State v. Phillips, 74
Decision Date | 28 February 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 74,74 |
Citation | 256 N.C. 445,124 S.E.2d 146 |
Parties | STATE, v. Charles D. PHILLIPS. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., and Harry W. McGalliard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
S. Thomas Walton, Asheville, for defendant.
The court erred in denying defendant's motion for nonsuit.
Three elements are necessary to constitute the offense of forgery: (1) There must be a false making or alteration of some instrument in writing; (2) there must be a fraudulent intent; and (3) the instrument must be apparently capable of effecting a fraud. State v. Dixon, 185 N.C. 727, 117 S.E. 170.
The State's evidence is sufficient to justify the inference that defendant aided and abetted Jarrett in the execution of the purported check. The check is sufficient in form to constitute a negotiable instrument payable 'to order.' G.S. § 25-14. But the State offered no evidence tending to show the falsity of the instrument, i. e., that it was executed without authority.
If the name signed to a negotiable instrument, or other instrument requiring a signature, is fictitious, of necessity, the name must have been affixed by one without authority, and if a person signs a fictitious name to such instrument with the purpose and intent to defraud--the instrument being sufficient in form to import legal liability--an indictable forgery is committed. However, if the purported maker is a real person and actually exists, the State is required to show not only that the signature in question is not genuine, but was made by defendant without authority. State v. Dixon, supra.
37 C.J.S. Forgery § 82, p. 94. '* * * (T)he testimony of a proper officer of the bank on which a check was drawn that the purported maker of such check...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McAllister
...had to prove that the defendant did not have the authority to sign the checks. Defendant bases this contention on State v. Phillips, 256 N.C. 445, 124 S.E.2d 146 (1962). Phillips, however, is not applicable to the question raised by defendant. Phillips pertains to the sufficiency of evidenc......
-
State v. Brown
...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 the sufficiency of the State's evidence to establ......
-
State v. Fleming
...directing our attention to any challenged portion of the charge. The charge with respect to forgery is in accord with State v. Phillips, 256 N.C. 445, 124 S.E.2d 146 (1962). In defendant's trial we No error. HEDRICK and WELLS, JJ., concur. ...
-
State v. King
...(2) there must be a fraudulent intent; and (3) the instrument must be apparently capable of effecting a fraud." State v. Phillips, 256 N.C. 445, 447, 124 S.E.2d 146, 147 (1962). Here, the thirteen forgery indictments, of which "Count 2" is representative, provide as AND THE JURORS FOR THE S......