State v. Saunders

• Decision Date: 18 March 1886
• Citation: 68 Iowa 370,27 N.W. 455
• Parties: STATE v. SAUNDERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

68 Iowa 370

27 N.W. 455

STATE

v.SAUNDERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed March 18, 1886.

Appeal from Keokuk district court.

Indictment for uttering and publishing as true two forged promissory notes.Trial by jury.Verdict, guilty; and judgment.The defendant appeals.Mackey & Fonda and G. D. Woodin, for appellant.

A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SEEVERS, J.

The state introduced one Kirker as a witness, and he gave evidence tending to establish the crime charged, and then asked him the following questions: “Do you know anything about Mr. Saunders having given a note with your name on it at any time?In the first place, did you sign a note with him?”To which the witness replied: “I have signed with Mr. Saunders.”The witness was then asked: “Was there ever any question about any such note you had not signed?”The witness replied: “Yes, sir.”The foregoing questions were objected to by the defendant, but the objections were overruled.

It was incumbent on the state to prove that the notes described in the indictment were forged.The notes referred to in the indictment did not purport to have been executed by the witness Kirker.The evidence given by the witness had a tendency to establish that the defendant had forged or uttered at least one promissory note other than those described in the indictment.Is such evidence competent and admissible?We are disposed to believe there is some conflict in the authorities as to this question.The cases in which offenses other than the one charged may be proved to show guilty knowledge are exceptions to the general rule.Undoubtedly, the crimes of forgery and uttering forged paper are within the exception.But the doubt seems to be whether the paper must not be of the same character or manufacture and precisely similar to that forged or uttered upon which the charge is based.Dibble v. People, 4 Parker, Crim. R. 199;People v. Corbin,56 N. Y. 363;Morris v. State, 8 Smedes &M. 762.We do not deem it necessary to determine this question.It will be observed that there was no evidence that the note referred to by the witness was forged, and yet it had a tendency to establish such fact, and was therefore prejudicial, or at least it cannot be said that it was not.It must be true that in order to infer guilty knowledge from other transactions, that it must appear a crime was committed.Besides this, the note referred to by the witness was not produced nor its absence accounted for.For aught...