Terrell v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 971. |
| Citation | 38 So.2d 604,34 Ala.App. 262 |
| Parties | TERRELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
J W. Brown, of Boaz, and Joe Brown, of Gadsden, for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Francis M. Kohn, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
Two indictments charging separate offenses of forgery in the second degree were returned against this appellant. By agreement the cases were tried together. The jury returned a verdict of guilty in each case.
The indictments were substantially in code form, and no error resulted in the court's overruling of the demurrers filed to each indictment. Jennings v. State, 17 Ala.App 640, 88 So. 187; Black v. State, 21 Ala.App. 94, 105 So. 703; Rice v. State, 22 Ala.App. 531, 117 So. 502.
The evidence presented by the State tended to show that on November 7, 1947, appellant identified himself to the manager and other employees of the Piggly Wiggly Store in Gadsden as A. L. Mills, the payee of a check in the amount of $38, and allegedly drawn by one Robert Stiles on the First National Bank of Gadsden. The store accepted the check upon appellant endorsing same, and appellant received groceries and cash for the balance due on the check after payment for the groceries.
The next day appellant returned with another check drawn on the same bank, in the amount of $44, also payable to A. L. Mills and allegedly signed by Robert Stiles, and substantially the same negotiations ensued.
The drawee bank refused to pay either check on the ground that it had no account with Robert Stiles. Store employees could find no other bank in Gadsden with an account in the name of Robert Stiles, nor were they able to locate any one by that name in Gadsden.
The appellant testifying in his own behalf in the trial below denied that he had been in the Piggly Wiggly Store in Gadsden on either the 7th or the 8th of November, 1947; and asserted that he had no part in either the preparation or the negotiation of the checks in question. He further testified that on the 7th of November he remained at his home the entire day, because of rain, and on the 8th of November he spent the day picking cotton for a Mr. Norrells.
Several witnesses, including his wife, and persons living 'within talking distance' gave testimony tending to establish appellant's whereabouts on the two days above mentioned.
Purely a jury question was thus posed by the evidence presented.
The principle is well established that one possessing a forged instrument, and applying it to his own use may, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, be presumed to have fabricated it, or have been privy to its fabrication. Tidwell v. State, 33 Ala.App. 198, 31 So.2d 513, and cases therein cited. The facts of this case fully justified a finding of all the elements necessary to bring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hereford v. State
...where offers of compromise or settlement by the defendant have been made to a law enforcement officer. 1. In Terrell v. State, 34 Ala.App. 262, 263, 38 So.2d 604, 605 (1949), the statement of the defendant to the chief deputy sheriff after the defendant's arrest that the defendant "was goin......
-
Matthews v. State, 5 Div. 327
...221, 101 So. 321; Overby v. State, 24 Ala.App. 254, 133 So. 915.' To the same effect is the holding of this Court in Terrell v. State, 34 Ala.App. 262, 38 So.2d 604. We have carefully searched the record for errors injuriously affecting the substantial right of appellant and have found none......
-
Johnson v. State, 4 Div. 913
...it or to have been privy to its forgery. Overby v. State, 24 Ala.App. 254, 133 So. 915 (1931); McGee, supra. See also Terrell v. State, 34 Ala.App. 262, 38 So.2d 604 (1949); Tidwell v. State, 33 Ala.App. 198, 31 So.2d 513 There is no doubt that the instrument in question possessed "some app......
-
Gossett v. State, 7 Div. 206
...jury, to have forged it or to have been privy to its forgery. Johnson v. State, 412 So.2d 822 (Ala.Crim.App.1981); Terrell v. State, 34 Ala.App. 262, 38 So.2d 604 (1949). Thus, the State in adducing evidence that the prescription was forged or altered, that it was made out to appellant and ......