People v. Lucas
Before: Weyand
WEYAND, J.,
pro tem.
Appellant having been prosecuted and convicted in the superior court of Sacramento County upon an information charging him with the crime of forgery, presents to this court his claims that there was error in the trial court on the part of the prosecution and in the following particulars, to wit: First, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and, secondly, that the court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence of other crimes.
1. The information upon which the defendant was tried charged the defendant with the crime of forgery, in language as follows: That he “did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously,‘knowingly, falsely and fraudulently with the intent to prejudice damage and injure one H. E. Reedy, make, alter, forge and counterfeit a certain instrument in writing in the words and figures following, to wit:
“ ‘Sacramento, Calif., July 5th, 1923, No. 71
“ ‘Fifth and J Street Branch.
“ ‘90-31
“ ‘United Bank and Trust Company-of California.
12
“ ‘Pay to the order of R. N. Lucas $24.50 Twenty-four and 50/100 Dollars. For Labor.
“ ‘L. B. Wilson/
“ ‘And he, the said R. N. Lucas true name John Chandler then and there well knowing the same to be false, altered, forged and counterfeited did then and there to wit: on the 5th day of July, 1923, at the City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, State of California, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently and with intent to prejudice damage and defraud the said H. E. Reedy, utter, publish and pass the same as genuine and true to the said H. E. Reedy.”
Section 470 of the Penal Code, in so far as it is here applicable, provides as follows: “Every person who, with intent to defraud, signs the name of another person, or of
[454]
a fictitious person, knowing that he has not authority so to do, to, or falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any . . . check, ... or utters, publishes, passes or attempts to pass, as true and genuine any . . . (check) knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or conterfeited, with intent to prejudice, damage or defraud any person, ... is guilty of forgery.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)