Threadgill v. State
| Citation | 75 Fla. 240,77 So. 880 |
| Parties | THREADGILL v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 08 February 1918 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Dade County; James T. Sanders Judge.
Percy Threadgill was convicted of uttering a forged deed, and he brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
In the prosecution of an information for forgery of a deed, and for uttering it, knowing it to have been a forgery, it is error to admit in evidence, over the defendant's objection, a certified copy of a record of the instrument, which was recorded in the official records of the county, in the absence of any showing by the state that the instrument is lost or destroyed, or not within reach of the process of the court, or is in possession of the defendant, in which latter case reasonable notice must be given to the defendant to produce it.
The production of the forged instrument is an essential part of the case in a prosecution for forgery, unless its absence is properly accounted for.
COUNSEL McCaskill & McCaskill and Hudson, Wolfe & Cason all of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Van C Swearingen, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted in the criminal court of record of Dade county of uttering a forged deed.
The information contained two counts, the first of which charged the defendant with forgery of the deed, and the second count with uttering it. He was convicted upon the second count, the verdict making no reference to the first count, and seeks here to reverse the judgment on writ of error.
The number of errors assigned is nine; but the first, fourth, fifth, and ninth are abandoned, and the seventh and eighth, which present the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, may be considered together.
The second assignment of error rests upon the court's ruling in admitting in evidence over the defendant's objection a certain certified copy of the record of a deed under the seal and signature of the clerk of the circuit court for Dade county.
The deed which the defendant was charged with forging purported to be a deed of conveyance of a certain lot of land in Dade county, containing about 2 1/2 acres of land, and to be signed by Charlotte Lawson and R. C. Long. The substance of the deed is set out fully in the information, but it appears not to be under the seal of either Lawson or Long. The forgery was alleged to have been committed on the 8th day of November, 1915. The second count charged the uttering of this deed, and the offense was alleged to have been committed on the 4th day of May, 1916. In the second count the 'tenor, purport, and effect' of the deed is set out in the words of the deed, which appears to be under the seal of Charlotte Lawson and R. C. Long. The deed as set out in each count is one and the same instrument; the only difference being that in the first count it appears not to be under seal of the makers, while in the second count it does. This difference, however, is probably due to a clerical error, as no reference is made to the point by either side. According to the information the deed was executed on the 8th day of November, 1915, and the makers acknowledged the execution of the instrument before H. W. Scott, a notary public, on the 8th day of November, 1916, who in his certificate stated that the makers were to him 'well known to be the persons described in and who executed the' conveyance. The paper offered in evidence purported to be a copy of the record of the above-mentioned deed, which, according to the certificate of the clerk, was recorded in the records of Dade county in Deed Book 112, on page 356, on the 4th day of May, 1916, or six months and four days before the execution of it was acknowledged by the makers according to the notary public's certificate. This appears to be another error, as the certificate had been made by the notary public when the instrument was presented for record.
To the reading of this certified copy of the record of the deed in evidence, which the information charged was a fraudulent deed and had been falsely executed and forged by the defendant, counsel for the defendant objected upon several grounds: First, that the original instrument alleged to be forged is the best evidence of the signatures thereto and its contents; second, that the original of an alleged forged instrument must first be produced, before other evidence of forgery can be introduced; third, that the absence of the original was not accounted for; and, fourth, that the defendant had not been given reasonable notice to produce the original. This objection was overruled, to which ruling the defendant excepted, and the same became the basis for the second assignment of error.
If the court erred in admitting in evidence the certified copy of the record of the instrument, it appears that the error was subsequently cured, so far as the proof of the existence of the instrument was concerned, by the written acknowledgment of the defendant that he procured the deed, and that it purported to be signed by R. C. Long and Charlotte Lawson as grantors, that he was named as grantee, and the instrument purported to convey the land described in the information. This written instrument, signed by the defendant, admitted in evidence without objection, does not state that the deed was procured from the persons whose names appeared signed thereto as grantors. He states that the deed 'purports to be signed by R. C. Long and Charlotte Lawson'; that defendant did not pay the grantors, nor did they receive from him any consideration whatsoever in any form 'for the execution of said deed'; that it was wholly without consideration, and conveyed no title to the defendant. This written acknowledgment by the defendant was in the form of an affidavit, and contains the admission that 'he had no right, title, or interest in or to the said described land,' but that he had mortgaged it to G. C. Branch to secure a note for $600, due in three years, at 8 per cent., and that the mortgage was recorded in Book 49 of Mortgages, page 178, in the public records of Dade county; that he had executed a quitclaim deed for the land to Long and Lawson on August 1, 1916, by which he intended to restore Long and Lawson to the 'status they occupied before their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wincor v. State, 67-665
...no predicate introduced for using the copy rather than the original. We find both of these latter points to be well taken. Threadgill v. State, 75 Fla. 240, 77 So. 880; Thompson v. Freeman, 111 Fla. 433, 149 So. 740; Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362, 179 So. 894; North v. State, Fla.1952, 65 So.......
-
Kirk v. State
...only when a proper foundation has been laid by giving the defendant reasonable notice to produce the original. Threadgill v. State, 1918, 75 Fla. 240, 77 So. 880. The rationale of the Florida view is particularly apparent in the instant case. The record indicates that defendant had no warni......