State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 12 June 1885 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Montgomery district court.
The defendant was indicted for the crime of uttering and publishing a forged note. Verdict and judgment were rendered against him, and he appeals to this court.
S. McPherson, for appellant.
A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. The note in question purported to be executed by C. F. Teliarey and W. North to C. C. Cole. The defendant sold the note to the prosecuting witness, H. N. Moore, and transferred it to him by indorsing thereon the name of C. C. Cole. The evidence tended strongly to show that the name of W. North was forged. But the defendant insists that there is no such evidence that he knew it was forged. The prosecuting witness testified that the defendant represented himself to be C. C. Cole, the payee of the note. The defendant was examined as a witness in his own behalf, and did not deny that he so represented himself, and the fact of the misrepresentation must be regarded as established. Now, it appears to us that this was a circumstance against the defendant. The misrepresentation did not, it is true, necessarily show a criminal intent. He testified that he was authorized by Cole to use his name in indorsing the note, and it is possible that he pretended that he was Cole to prevent any question from being raised in regard to his authority. But no sufficient reason is given why the note was not indorsed by Cole himself. The assumption, then, by the defendant that he was Cole, was, we think, a circumstance tending to impeach the good faith of the transaction, and to justify the inference that he knew that North's name was forged.
2. The court gave an instruction in these words: “The intent with which a criminal act is committed need not be shown by direct proof, but it may be inferred from what the party does; it may also be inferred from all the facts and circumstances under which the act complained of was committed, as disclosed by the evidence.” The giving of this instruction is assigned as error. The defendant contends that the court invaded the province of the jury in holding that the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding of a criminal intent. But the rule laid down was stated in a general or abstract way. We do not think that the court had any intention to instruct in regard to the weight of evidence, nor do we think that the jury could have so understood the court. The instruction pertained to the kind of evidence which the jury might consider as bearing upon the question of intent, and is not, we think, subject to the objection urged.
3. The court gave an instruction in these words: The giving of this instruction is assigned as error. The objection urged is that it was calculated to lead the jury to think that unless they believed that the defendant did not have knowledge of the forgery, they should not acquit; whereas they were bound to acquit if they had a reasonable doubt of the defendant's knowledge of the forgery....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Callaghan
... ... The ... plaintiffs, George Smith and William Smith, show in their ... petition that one George Smith, of the state of Illinois, ... died seized of the land; that the plaintiffs became devisees ... of the land under the will of George Smith, deceased; that ... ...
-
Smith v. Callaghan
... ... The plaintiffs, George Smith and William Smith, show in their petition that one George Smith, of the state of Illinois, died seized of the land; that the plaintiffs became devisees of the land under the will of George Smith, deceased; that one Hunt and one ... ...