People v. Walker

Criminal Law—Uttering and Publishing Fictitious Check—Intent to Defraud Savings Bank—Actual Defrauding not Essential. Where defendant opened an account with a savings bank under an assumed name, and was charged with the crime of making, passing, uttering and publishing a fictitious cheek under such assumed name, with intent to defraud such bank, as defined in section 476 of the Penal Code, the essentials of the offense, which must be proved, are the uttering and publishing of the fictitious cheek with knowledge of its fictitious character, with intent to defraud the bank, but it is not essential to prove that defendant drew or attempted to draw on the account so established, or that the bank was in fiet injured or defrauded by the transaction.

Id.—Intent to Defraud a Question for Jury.—The intent to defraud by depositing of the fictitious check to the credit of the savings bank account was a question exclusively for the jury, and such intent may be inferred by the jury from all the surrounding circumstances. The jury was not compelled to accept the defendant’s statement of his intent and purpose in making the deposit.

Id.—Opportunity for Fraud—Support of Verdict.—The establishment of the account, and the subsequent deposit of the fictitious check created an opportunity for the perpetration of a fraud upon the bank; and it is held that the facts and circumstances as revealed by the entire evidence fully warranted the jury in finding that the check in question was published and passed by the defendant with intent to defraud the bank.

Id.—Confession of Prior Felony—Cross-examination of Defendant as Witness—Impeachment.—When defendant took the witness-stand in his own behalf, he subjected himself to possible impeachment in the mode authorized by section 2051 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and notwithstanding defendant’s confession of a prior conviction for a felony, it was proper on cross-examination, for the purpose of impeachment, to ask him if he had ever been convicted of a felony.

Id.—Remarks op Court Prior to Ruling—Conversation with District Attorney—Misconduct not Assignable Error—Waiver.— Where defendant at first answered without objection that he had been convicted of a felony, and upon objection for defendant subsequently made that section 1025 of the Penal Code forbade allusion to the prior conviction charged to which defendant pleaded guilty, and the court treated the objection as if covering the answer made, but made remarks before ruling thereon, which called for a reply of the district attorney, showing a prior conviction in another case pending in the same court, which were pertinent and proper to safeguard the defendant, any possibility of this resulting in injury to the defendant cannot be considered as misconduct upon appeal, in the absence of an objection to the same, coupled with a specific assignment of misconduct made at the time of the trial.

Id.—Objection Made Properly Overruled.—The objection urged to the question answered by the witness, assuming it to have been • seasonably made, was properly overruled and the evidence of the impeachment of defendant for prior conviction of a felony allowed to stand.