Thogerson v. State, A96A1889
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | SMITH; ANDREWS, J., and HAROLD R. BANKE |
| Citation | 224 Ga.App. 76,479 S.E.2d 463 |
| Parties | , 32 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 480, 97 FCDR 38 THOGERSON v. The STATE. |
| Docket Number | No. A96A1889,A96A1889 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1996 |
Page 463
97 FCDR 38
v.
The STATE.
[224 Ga.App. 77] Robert S. Devins, Atlanta, for appellant.
Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Debra H. Bernes, Thomas A. Cole, Nancy I. Jordan, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
[224 Ga.App. 76] SMITH, Judge.
Larry Alan Thogerson was indicted by a Cobb County grand jury on one count of criminal attempt to commit the crime of theft by taking. OCGA §§ 16-8-2, 16-4-1. A jury found him guilty, his motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals.
Construed to support the verdict, the evidence showed that Thogerson presented a forged cash refund voucher in the amount of $ 829.50 to a department store. The refund voucher had a nonexistent employee identification number, a nonexistent "house number," and a countersignature from an employee at a store in Memphis, Tennessee; the voucher purported to be given for merchandise never sold at the store from which it was ostensibly purchased. A department store security manager questioned Thogerson regarding the purchase, and he claimed to have obtained the refund voucher about a month before, although the voucher itself showed that it had been generated on the previous day.
In his sole enumeration of error, Thogerson contends the trial court should have applied the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code to the refund voucher, because the prosecutor described the refund voucher as a "negotiable instrument." 1 Thogerson asserts that the voucher must be treated as a negotiable instrument under former OCGA § 11-3-104(1), and that former OCGA § 11-3-207(1)(b) 2 provides that negotiation is effective even if obtained by fraud. It follows, Thogerson argues, that a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted because the State failed to prove that Thogerson was not a "holder in due course," who, under former OCGA § 11-3-306, took the instrument free of the store's claims. 3
Page 464
[224 Ga.App. 77] This contention is without merit. The definitions contained in former Article 3 of the UCC, including the definition of "holder in due course" and "instrument," are expressly limited in their application to "this article." Former OCGA § 11-3-102(1), (2). Moreover, the definitions applicable to this article taken from other portions of the UCC are specifically enumerated. Former OCGA § 11-3-102(3). Even the general definitions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CNL Ins. America v. Moreland, A96A1961
...of an insurance contract which is not included in the record. See generally Thogerson v. State, 224 Ga.App. [226 Ga.App. 59] 76, n. 1, 479 S.E.2d 463 (1996) (mere statement of opinion as to legal effect of document not binding BEASLEY, Judge, dissenting. The record shows that Moreland was i......
-
Vassell v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 15-11156
...(2002) (defendant “made withdrawals which far exceeded the amounts he knew had been deposited” in a bank account); Thogerson v. State, 224 Ga.App. 76, 479 S.E.2d 463, 463 (1996) (defendant “presented a forged cash refund voucher in the amount of $829.50 to a department store”); Matthews v. ......
-
Vassell v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 15-11156
...(2002) (defendant “made withdrawals which far exceeded the amounts he knew had been deposited” in a bank account); Thogerson v. State, 224 Ga.App. 76, 479 S.E.2d 463, 463 (1996) (defendant “presented a forged cash refund voucher in the amount of $829.50 to a department store”); Matthews v. ......
-
Barrett v. Britt, A12A1249.
...Ga.App. 178, 180(4), 435 S.E.2d 486 (1993) (UCC inapplicable to agreement for future financing of real estate). Cf. Thogerson v. State, 224 Ga.App. 76, 77, 479 S.E.2d 463 (1996) (UCC definitions inapplicable in criminal prosecution). Rather, the plain meaning of “equipment” generally includ......
-
CNL Ins. America v. Moreland, A96A1961
...of an insurance contract which is not included in the record. See generally Thogerson v. State, 224 Ga.App. [226 Ga.App. 59] 76, n. 1, 479 S.E.2d 463 (1996) (mere statement of opinion as to legal effect of document not binding BEASLEY, Judge, dissenting. The record shows that Moreland was i......
-
Vassell v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 15-11156
...(2002) (defendant “made withdrawals which far exceeded the amounts he knew had been deposited” in a bank account); Thogerson v. State, 224 Ga.App. 76, 479 S.E.2d 463, 463 (1996) (defendant “presented a forged cash refund voucher in the amount of $829.50 to a department store”); Matthews v. ......
-
Vassell v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 15-11156
...(2002) (defendant “made withdrawals which far exceeded the amounts he knew had been deposited” in a bank account); Thogerson v. State, 224 Ga.App. 76, 479 S.E.2d 463, 463 (1996) (defendant “presented a forged cash refund voucher in the amount of $829.50 to a department store”); Matthews v. ......
-
Barrett v. Britt, A12A1249.
...Ga.App. 178, 180(4), 435 S.E.2d 486 (1993) (UCC inapplicable to agreement for future financing of real estate). Cf. Thogerson v. State, 224 Ga.App. 76, 77, 479 S.E.2d 463 (1996) (UCC definitions inapplicable in criminal prosecution). Rather, the plain meaning of “equipment” generally includ......