State v. Quesnel

Decision Date02 February 1965
Docket NumberNo. 68,68
Citation207 A.2d 155,124 Vt. 491
PartiesSTATE of Vermont v. Euclide QUESNEL.
CourtVermont Supreme Court

John T. Conley, Middlebury, for defendant.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ. KEYSER, Justice.

The respondent is informed against for fraud under 13 V.S.A. § 2002 resulting on trial in a verdict of guilty and appeal by respondent. The question for decision are the sufficiency of the information and error in the charge of the court.

The information as far as material charged that the respondent----

'did then and there with force and arms feloniously and designedly by false pretenses obtain from one Robert J. Kemp, the signature of said Robert J. Kemp to a written instrument, the false making whereof would be punishable as forgery, said written instrument being, to wit, a form note of the Chitenden Trust Company as follows:

'Burlington, Vt. _____ 1962 $_____ After date ___ promise TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF _____ DOLLARS if this note is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, the undersigned, jointly and serverally, agree to pay all interest, costs and expenses of collection including attorney's fees.

Payable at CHTTENDEN

TRUST COMPANY

________

________

Value Received

No. _____

with then and there the intention to defraud said Robert J. Kemp of certain legal rights and obligations following from the execution of such note, the same being of the value of more than twenty- five dollars ($25.00), said false pretenses being that he did represent that and tell said Robert J. Kemp, an employee at that time of said Euclide Quesnel, that his signature was to be obtained in connection with said Robert J. Kemp's social security deduction, said representations being false and the falseness of them being known to said Euclide Quesnel.'

Subsequent to the verdict of guilty, the respondent moved to arrest the judgment in the following language:

'That the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the State of Vermont in that it is necessary in the information to set forth the instrument in letters and figures unless it be in the hands of the person charged with the intent to defraud and in that case it is necessary to aver in the information that the instrument is in his possession.'

A motion in arrest of judgment must specify the grounds on which it is based and on review it is controlled by the points raised in the court below. State v. Donaluzzi, 94 Vt. 142, 148, 109 A. 57, Massucco v. Tomassi, 80 Vt. 186, 194 67 A. 551. Such motions are addressed to error apparent on the face of the record. State v. Thoronton, 56 Vt. 35, 38. To withstand attack by a proper motion in arrest of judgment, a complaint must allege every fact essential to the offense charged. State v. Cliffside, Inc., 120 Vt. 265, 266, 138 A.2d 310. See also State v. Gosselin, 110 Vt. 361, 365, 6 A.2d 14.

The statute under which the information is brought imposes a penalty upon anyone who designedly by false pretenses, with intent to defraud, obtains from another person, money, or other property, or the signature to any instrument, the false making of which would be punishable as forgery. 13 V.S.A. § 2002. Under this statute if the respondent procured a signature to an instrument, which would constitute forgery, if it were not Kemp's signature, the offense is made out. This does not mean, nor is it required, that all the particulars of forgery be alleged in the information for this is not the offense. The statute creates and defines the offense and an information in the words of the statute, properly setting forth the pretenses and alleging their falsity, is sufficient. State v. Switzer, 63 Vt. 604, 606, 22 A. 724. The question raised by respondent's motion is whether the information is defective because the note was not sufficiently described in the information.

It is the claim of the state as exemplified by the information and supported by the testimony it produced, that the note was in blank from when the respondent obtained Kemp's signature on it. Kemp, then an employee of the respondent, testified that the respondent came into the barn where he was working with three papers he said had to do with his, Kemp's social security and asked him to sign them. Kemp further testified that all he could see of the papers were the signature lines at the bottom; that he did not read the papers or know that they were notes, and that he trusted his employer.

The note in question here was admitted without objection as an exhibit and shows it was dated May 31, 1962, due twenty-one days after date and payable to Euclide Quesnel, the respondent, for $1685.00. The respondent then discounted the note at the Chittenden Trust Company. Respondent contends that the note should have been described with these additional facts shown in it rather than in its blank form. This, as we have pointed out, was neither the allegation nor claim of the state nor its proof of fraud.

The instrument is set forth in the information in haec verba, as it must be, in charging forgery, State v. Conlin, 27 Vt. 318 [310, 314] and is in the same form that the state alleged it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Kasper
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1979
    ...motion for a new trial. Compare State v. Lapham, 135 Vt. 393, 405-08, 377 A.2d 249, 256-58 (1977) with State v. Quesnel, 124 Vt. 491, 495, 207 A.2d 155, 157-58 (1965). This comment was not "manifestly intended to be, (n)or was it of such character that the jury would naturally and necessari......
  • State v. Morrill
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1969
    ...Thus, the trial court had no fair opportunity to pass judgment upon this point and to add to, or modify its charge. State v. Quesnel, 124 Vt. 491, 495, 207 A.2d 155. Judge Learned Hand, in Scott v. Central Commercial Company, 2 Cir., 272 F.2d 781 (1959), cert. denied 363 U.S. 806, 80 S.Ct. ......
  • Kinney v. Cloutier
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1965
    ...requires a reversal. State v. Brisson, 119 Vt. 48, 49, 53, 117 A.2d 255. However, as stated by Justice Keyser, in State v. Quesnel, 124 Vt. 491, 207 A.2d 155, 'But where it is claimed the court has failed to instruct on one or more esential points or issues, such failure must be brought to ......
  • State v. King
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1973
    ...opportunity to pass judgment on this claimed exception. See State v. Morse, 127 Vt. 137, 139, 241 A.2d 328 (1968); State v. Quesnel, 124 Vt. 491, 495, 207 A.2d 155 (1964). At the conclusion of the court's charge, the following colloquy took place between defendant's counsel and the 'Mr. Wel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT