People v. Pearson

DOOLING, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of making and uttering a forged and fictitious check for $107.30 with the intent to defraud one Kennedy and the bank on which the check was drawn. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and from orders denying a new trial and motion in arrest of judgment.

The evidence shows that appellant, representing himself to be one Meiss, ordered and had printed by a commercial printer 500 checks in the name of “Amplex Equipment Company, 9607 San Leandro Boulevard, Oakland, California” and drawn on the named bank. Amplex Equipment Company had no account in this bank, the address given was a vacant lot, and no such company was listed on the records of the telephone company or water company. The check passed on Kennedy was given in payment for a gun and the gun and change in cash were given by Kennedy to appellant. This check was purportedly signed by H. L. Madden and made payable to and endorsed with the name of George S. Edwards. Edwards testified that he had never seen or endorsed this cheek.

The prosecution proved, over defendant’s objection, the passing of similar checks by appellant purportedly signed by Madden and payable to Edwards on the fictitious account of Amplex Equipment Company to five separate persons,

[585]

all of whom identified appellant as the man who had given them the checks.

Defendant admitted giving the check to Kennedy but testified that he had received the check from Edwards already endorsed by Edwards and believed in good faith that it was genuine.

The evidence of appellant’s guilt is convincing. According to the testimony appellant, using a name not his own, had 500 checks printed in the name of Ampies Equipment Company, which was probably fictitious, and on a bank in which such company had no account, giving as the address of the company a vacant lot. He passed at least six of such checks in a short period of time, all made payable to Edwards, whom he admittedly knew, and Edwards denied any knowledge thereof. There are other corroborative details which we need not mention.

Appellant complains of the introduction of the evidence of his passing the other five checks. They were admissible under the well known rule that evidence of similar criminal acts occurring at or about the same time may be introduced to show common plan or design and criminal intent.