State v. Redding
| Decision Date | 14 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 42266,42266,1 |
| Citation | 239 S.W.2d 494,362 Mo. 39 |
| Parties | STATE v. REDDING |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., Jack Fleischaker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appealed from a conviction for forgery in the second degree and a sentence of two years in the penitentiary. Defendant was charged with forging a check for $35 'purporting to be the act of one Harold A. Harvey' and 'purporting to be drawn on the Bosworth State Bank.'
No bill of exceptions has been filed so only errors appearing on the record proper are before us. State v. Abbott, Mo.Sup., 236 S.W.2d 592; State v. Birkner, Mo.Sup., 229 S.W.2d 674. Defendant has filed no brief here, but it appears that, after the jurors were sworn to try the case, the Court permitted an amendment of the information to show the date of the offense as the 14th day of November instead of the 13th day of November, as originally alleged. However, the check was set out in full in the information, showing its date '11-14, 1949', so this amendment only made the date of the offense conform to the date of the check as already alleged. This amendment was authorized by the statute of jeofails, Sec. 545.030 and Sec. 545.290, R.S.1949. State v. Tunnell, Mo.Sup., 296 S.W. 423; State v. Bowers, Mo.Sup., 29 S.W.2d 58; see also Tucker v. Kaiser, Mo.Sup., 176 S.W.2d 622; Honey v. Kaiser, 352 Mo. 1120, 181 S.W.2d 492. We hold there was no error in permitting this amendment.
Defendant contended no crime was charged by the information herein, and filed a motion to quash, relying on State v. Dobbins, 351 Mo. 796, 174 S.W.2d 171. In the Dobbins case, the defendant was charged under Sec. 4583, R.S.1939, now Sec. 561.210, R.S.1949, with selling, exchanging or delivering for a consideration a forged check, namely: a check he knew had been forged by another person. (Forgery in the fourth degree.) The defendant therein contended he should have been charged under Sec. 4571, R.S.1939, now Sec. 561.080, R.S.1949, but this Court affirmed his conviction, holding that he was charged under the proper Section. This ruling was correct, but this Court, quoting from State v. Gibson, 244 Mo. 215, loc. cit. 218, 148 S.W. 947, 948, said: 'That Sec. (4571) applies 'only to instruments purporting to be executed by a bank.'' The Gibson case made that statement, citing State v. Milligan, 170 Mo. 215, 70 S.W. 473. However, the charge in the Gibson case was forgery of a promissory note and, as to such an instrument, the statement made therein concerning Section 4571 was correct, as will be seen from reading the statute which is as follows: 'Every person who shall forge or counterfeit, or falsely make or alter, or cause or procure to be forged, counterfeited or falsely made or altered: (First, any promissory note, bill of exchange, draft, check, certificate of deposit, or other evidence of debt, being or purporting to be made or issued by any bank or trust company incorporated under the laws of this state, or of any other state, territory, government or country;) or, (second, any order or check being or purporting to be drawn on any such incorporated bank or trust company, or any cashier thereof, by any other person, company or corporation,) shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of forgery in the second degree.' (Parentheses and italics ours.)
It is clear from reading Section 561.080 that it covers two separate kinds of offenses and that the part designated as 'second' covers the offense charged in this case, namely: forgery of a check purporting to be drawn on a bank by some other person. This part of the statute was overlooked in the Dobbins case. The reference to this statute in the Milligan case was also concerning a promissory note, and not to a check. However, the defendant therein was charged with forgery of a promissory note, not of a bank but of a private person. Forgery of a promissory note of a private person is covered by another statute and is forgery in the third degree. See Sec. 561.160, R.S.1949. In the Milligan case, the charge was under the third degree forgery statute but the instructions to the jury stated the punishment provided for second degree forgery and conviction was reversed for that error. In State v. Socwell, 318 Mo. 742, 300 S.W. 680, and State v. Stegner, 276 Mo. 427, 207 S.W. 826, informations charging offenses similar to the one in this case, under part 'second' of Section 561.080, were held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schupbach v. Fisler
... ... The statute then provided: 'If the validity of a will be contested, or the executor be a minor, or absent from the state, letters of administration shall be granted during the time of such contest, minority or absence to some other person, who shall take charge of the ... ...
-
State v. Lafferty
...383, 385(5). See also State v. Colbart, Mo., 411 S.W.2d 92, 95(3--5); State v. Lane, Mo., 371 S.W.2d 261, 264(4); and see State v. Redding, 362 Mo. 39, 239 S.W.2d 494, where, as here, the amendment came after the jurors were Nor was there error as suggested by point 2 when 'after it allowed......
-
State v. Fowler
...to time to conform to the evidence has been upheld numerous times. See, e.g., State v. Tunnell, Mo., 296 S.W. 423; State v. Redding, 362 Mo. 39, 239 S.W.2d 494; State v. Brookshire, Mo.App., 329 S.W.2d 252; State v. Turley, Mo., 452 S.W.2d Judgment affirmed. HOUSER and WELBORN, CC., concur.......
-
State v. Lamb
...for knowingly uttering and passing a forged check. Mo.R.S.1949, Sec. 561.250. There are no errors upon the record proper, State v. Redding, Mo.Sup., 239 S.W.2d 494, and we consider the reviewable questions presented by his motion for a new trial. Mo.R.S.1949, Secs. 547.030, 547.270; State v......