Vanderslice v. State

• Decision Date: 06 March 1936
• Docket Number: A-8919.
• Citation: 57 P.2d 267,59 Okla.Crim. 192
• Parties: VANDERSLICE v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

57 P.2d 267

59 Okla.Crim. 192

VANDERSLICE v. STATE.

No. A-8919.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

March 6, 1936

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1936.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where the making and uttering of a fictitious instrument is one continuous action, they may be charged in one count as a single offense.

2. The allegations in the information with reference to the passing of the warrant with the name of the county treasurer on it relates to the forging of the instrument and was simply an explanation in support of the essential allegations of an intent to defraud in the commission of the forgery, and does not make the information duplicitous.

3. Demurrer of the defendant to the information was properly overruled.

4. Venue does not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

5. Exhibits C, D, E, and F, are admissible, as they tend to show guilty knowledge or intent on the part of the defendant in the commission of the offense charged, and tend to establish a scheme or plan embracing the commission of similar offenses so closely related to each other that proof of one tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the other.

6. Where a new trial is asked upon the ground that a juror who served upon the jury was prejudiced against the defendant which prejudice was unknown to the defendant prior to the rendition of the verdict, to entitle the defendant to a new trial it must not only be shown that the said juror was prejudiced, but it must also appear that the defendant suffered an injustice by reason of the said juror having served upon the said jury.

7. Where the defendant accepts a juror without availing himself of the right to examine said juror on voir dire, or without availing himself of the right to challenge him for cause, he will not be allowed to make an objection that the juror had formed and expressed an opinion adverse to him, as a ground for a new trial.

8. A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless it appears affirmatively from the record that the trial court abused its discretion, a new trial will not be granted.

Appeal from District Court, Murray County; W. G. Long, Judge.

Jacob Vanderslice was convicted of forgery in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Holmes H. Colbert, of Sulphur, and Embry, Johnson, Crowe & Tolbert of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

DAVENPORT Judge.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter for convenience referred to as the defendant, was convicted of the crime of forgery in the first degree, in Murray county, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the State Penitentiary for a term of seven years.

The information upon which the defendant was charged, omitting the caption and signature, is as follows:

"Now comes Lynn W. Norman, the duly qualified and acting County Attorney in and for Murray County, State of Oklahoma, and gives the District Court of Murray County and the State of Oklahoma, to know and be informed that Jacob Vanderslice did, in Murray County and in the State of Oklahoma, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-two, and anterior to the presentment hereof, commit the crime of Forgery in the first degree in the manner and form as follows, to-wit:

That the said Jacob Vanderslice, did on said day and date and in said county and state, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and fraudulently and with the premeditated design to obtain money by false and fraudulent pretenses, did forge the name of O. W. Montgomery, County Treasurer of Murray County, Oklahoma, to a certain warrant No. 5 of School District No. 6, in the amount of $100.00 in Murray County, Oklahoma, the same being the Oak Grove School of said county and State, and he the said Jacob Vanderslice did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and fraudulently forge the bogus signatures as aforesaid for the purpose of showing that said warrant had been registered in the office of the County Treasurer of Murray County, Oklahoma, that the said warrant was made payable to Howard Wagoner, and was purported to have been issued by said District for services rendered by the said Howard Wagoner as Teacher of said school; that a copy of said warrant is hereto attached, and made a part hereof, that the said Jacob Vanderslice did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with the premeditated design to defraud, take said bogus warrant and under representations that the same was a valid warrant against said School District pass the same to Mrs. B. H. Smith, of Hickory, Oklahoma; that said warrant is a warrant issued against the public funds of said School District, the same being a subdivision of the State of Oklahoma; that the names of the officers forged are the names of public officials of Murray County, Oklahoma.

contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State."

Mrs. B. H. Smith, called as a witness for the state, in substance testified as follows: I have known the defendant six or seven years; knew him when he was superintendent of the schools of Murray county; in September, 1932, I was teaching school in Hickory township; I have examined State Exhibit A. The defendant gave the warrant to me in September or October, 1932-I would not be positive which.

It was some time after the date of the warrant; when I first saw him I believe it was here in the courthouse; the warrant was given me on a debt of $100, and was to pay the debt of $100 he owed me; I came to see the defendant to collect the money, and he said he had the warrant if I was willing to take it, and I told him I was; I remember he told me the warrant was not payable or was not called, or something to that effect, but if it was not called by the first of the year he would take it up; the warrant was fully filled out by the names of the members of the school board being attached. I later got the cash from the county treasurer; it seems to me it was some time in March, but I would not be positive about that. The county treasurer paid me out of county funds, I suppose; I cannot remember clearly whether the warrant was turned down by the county treasurer's office, but I got the money; I do not remember who cashed the warrant; I saw the warrant in the county treasurer's office and I paid the county back the money that was paid to me for it; I had gotten the money from the county on the warrant and I returned it.

On cross-examination Mrs. Smith testified the defendant owed her money when she got the warrant; that he had been owing her since April, 1932; the warrant was delivered to me in the fall of 1932; after the warrant was taken up the defendant paid me the $100 he owed me; at the time he delivered the warrant the defendant did not tell me the warrant was not good, nor did he tell me it was not legal. If he said anything about it being illegal, I do not remember it.

Howard Wagoner, testifying on behalf of the state, stated: I was teaching school in this county in the fall of 1932, at Oak Grove School; the members of the board were T. C. Roberson, B. F. Frazier, and J. H. Brown; I did not get the warrant marked State Exhibit A, purported to have been issued September 3, 1932, for $100; it was never offered to me; I got my salary warrant that was due in September, 1932; I do not remember what date it was.

I wrote my name in the stub of the warrant book for the warrant that was issued to me; the stub shows it was for my September salary; it was General Fund Warrant No. 5; amount $100; dependent school district No. 6; dated September 2, 1932; issued to Howard Wagoner on account No. 5; department, Teachers' Fund; appropriation for $1,800; amount approved for this purpose $450; warrant issued No. 5, $100. This warrant $100, pending claims and contracts $300; total charged against the appropriation $300, unencumbered balance $150; received this warrant this 2d day of September 1932, signed Howard Wagoner. This warrant is No. 5; I did not draw the other warrant for teaching prior to this time; Frazier and Roberson were the members of the school board that signed my warrant; I had nothing to do with the warrant marked State's Exhibit A. There was no money due me from the school district on September 3, 1932. The defendant, Mr. Vanderslice, was county superintendent at that time, and on the date this warrant purports to have been issued and signed; I did not sign my name on the back of the warrant designated as State Exhibit A, nor do I know who wrote it.

T. C. Roberson, testifying in behalf of the state, stated: I live in Oak Grove District; I was an officer of the school board in 1932; the two other members of the board were B. F. Frazier and J. H. Brown; I was clerk of the school board; I kept the warrant book for the school district; on September 2, 1932, there was a warrant issued to Howard Wagoner for salary, in the sum of $100; the number of the warrant was No. 5; there had been one other warrant issued for Howard Wagoner out of this book before that time; there had been other warrants issued to other parties; we had two teachers in the district at that time; I had nothing to do with the issuing of the warrant shown as State Exhibit A. The first time I saw the warrant Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Johnson, the sheriff here, came out and brought it; my name is on the warrant but not my signature; I did not sign it; I never saw the warrant until Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Johnson came to my place with it.

Mr Brown signs his name J. H. Brown, but he did not sign the school warrants; they were signed by Mr. Frazier, as director; I wrote one, dated September 2, 1932, payable...