State v. Ramage
| Decision Date | 06 August 1928 |
| Docket Number | 2817. |
| Citation | 269 P. 489,51 Nev. 82 |
| Parties | STATE v. RAMAGE. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Washoe County; Thomas F. Moran, Judge.
Thomas Ramage was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J. E McNamara, of Reno, for appellant.
M. A Diskin, Atty. Gen., Wm. J. Forman, Deputy Atty. Gen., and L D. Summerfield, Dist. Atty., and Harlan L. Heward, Deputy Dist. Atty., both of Reno, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of forgery and has appealed. He contends that the check alleged to have been forged was not proven such, and in this connection asserts that the court erred in admitting in evidence Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, and G.
Section 6663 of the Revised Laws defines forgery, so far as here material, as follows:
"Every person who shall falsely make * * * any * * * check * * * or shall utter, * * * pass * * * as true and genuine, any of the above-named false * * * knowing the same to be false, * * * with intent * * * to defraud * * * shall be deemed guilty of forgery. * * *"
Leo Hogan, the person whose name purported to have been signed to the check in question, had known the defendant slightly in Salt Lake City some years ago and had met him on several occasions in Reno shortly before the check was passed. He appeared as a witness for the state and testified that he did not sign the check and that he had never seen it prior to its passage and had never had an account in the bank on which it was drawn. An officer of the bank testified that the purported maker of the check had never had an account with the bank.
The defendant went upon the stand and gave testimony in his own behalf, but he did not testify that he received the check in question from Hogan, or that Hogan signed it or had authorized him or any one else to sign his name thereto, though it was made payable to him. While in jail he sent for Mr. Heward, the deputy district attorney, and this officer testified that the defendant told him that the signature was actually that of Hogan.
Exhibit B, a forged check, which was refused payment by the bank upon which it was drawn, was admitted in evidence without objection. Exhibit E was a sheet of paper upon which the witness Hogan wrote his name several times in the presence of the court and jury, during the trial, and was admitted without objection. Exhibit F, according to the testimony of witness Heward, was admitted by the defendant to be a bad check. No objection was made to its admission in evidence. Exhibit G was a check which the defendant passed in Lovelock about the time the other checks were cashed. The witness Heward testified that the defendant admitted to him that it was a "bad check." Exhibits C and D were checks which were found in the possession of the defendant at the time of his arrest. There was no proof that the two last-named checks were forged instruments, or that they could have been or were used fraudulently in any way. When offered these exhibits were objected to.
As to all of the exhibits except the last two no error was committed. No error could have been committed as to those concerning which no objection was made, and had there been an objection as to Exhibit E it would not have been good. 26 C.J. 969. As to exhibit G, there being the undisputed testimony of defendant's admission that it was a "bad check," it was admissible on the question of intent.
The objection should have been sustained as to Exhibits C and D as no evidence whatever was introduced as to their being forgeries, and it was held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bourdlais, 3743
...Such is the clear, unequivocal, unambigous provision of the statute.' State v. Willberg, 45 Nev. 183, 200 P. 475, and State v. Ramage, 51 Nev. 82, 269 P. 489 are to the same Defendant next contends that the court erred in permitting the State's expert witness to testify as to the sanity of ......
-
State v. Skaug
...to warrant a reversal in any case. State v. Willberg, 45 Nev. 183, 200 P. 475; State v. Williams, 47 Nev. 279, 200 P. 555; State v. Ramage, 51 Nev. 82, 269 P. 489. next three assignments are directed to the court's refusal to give instructions offered by appellant. The first of these propos......
-
State v. Orr
...forgery.' This rule is sustained by the overwhelming weight of authority. Denis v. Commonwealth, 144 Va. 559, 131 S.E. 131; State v. Ramage, 51 Nev. 82, 269 P. 489; Green v. State, 152 Miss. 282, 119 So. 808; 37 C.J.S., Forgery, § 80, page We think the evidence is sufficient not only to sus......
-
Dalby v. State
...unless the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or has actually prejudiced the defendant. State v. Ramage, 51 Nev. 82, 269 P. 489 (1928). Judgment will not be set aside where, upon examination of the entire case, the verdict is manifestly right, or no other verdict c......