People v. Parrott

SCHOTTKY, J.

Defendant was charged by information with a violation of section 470 of the Penal Code, it being alleged that on or about November 8, 1958, he, “with intent then and there to cheat and defraud Willoughby’s Jewelry and Bank of Willits, located at Willits, California, did wilfully, unlawfully, fraudulently and feloniously, make, pass, utter and publish a certain fictitious check and order in writing for the payment of money, and did then and there make, utter, publish and pass the same, knowing said check to be fictitious, as aforesaid, with intent then and there to cheat and defraud said Willoughby’s Jewelry and Bank of Willits, located at Willits, California; ...” Defendant pleaded not guilty, and upon the trial the jury found him “guilty of forgery of fictitious name as charged in the information.” Probation was denied and judgment was pronounced. Defendant has appealed from the “Pinal Judgment of Conviction and Sentence.”

It appears from the record that on November 8, 1958, at about 5 :15 p. m., Parrott entered a jewelry store in Willits, California. He looked at a watch and then informed the clerk that he would like to purchase it. He asked the clerk if she would accept a check on a local bank. After she said that she would, she furnished a blank check which Parrott requested her to complete because he had had a few drinks. She completed the check and gave it to Parrott to sign. He signed it “Prank H. Hilluon.” Parrott then decided to purchase a ring. The clerk wrote out a second cheek for the two purchases in the sum of $108.89. Parrott affixed the name “Prank H. Hilluon” to it. He then left the store. No person by the name of “Prank H. Hilluon” had an account at the bank upon which the check was drawn. The cashier of the bank had never heard of such a person . A check with

[303]

the post office, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and a search of the telephone directory failed to disclose anyone with the name signed on the check. The clerk testified that, in her opinion, Parrott was not intoxicated.

Appellant does not contend that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction, but contends that the court committed prejudicial error in refusing to give the following instructions to the jury:

“If you find that the defendant was guilty of an offense included within the charge of the information, but entertain a reasonable doubt as to the crime of which he is guilty, it is your duty to convict him only of the lesser offense.”