People v. Collins

California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 1908 No. Crim. No. 106.Published

Before: Taggart

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the validity or legality of an instrument under public policy is irrelevant to a forgery prosecution, provided the instrument appears genuine enough to potentially defraud another. Furthermore, the court held that objections regarding the duplicity of an information must be raised by demurrer and cannot be challenged after the verdict.

Issues

Whether an instrument that is void or against public policy can be the subject of a forgery prosecution.
Whether a verdict of 'guilty as charged' is invalid when an information alleges both forging and uttering.
Whether an objection to the duplicity of an information can be raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As to what contracts are against public policy, or ultra vires, or void as creations under unconstitutional statutes, we think matters entirely foreign to a prosecution for forgery.”

“The alteration of the certificate with intent to defraud is the gist of the crime charged.”

“The demurrer to the information did not raise the objection that two offenses were charged, and the verdict cannot now be-attacked on the ground of the duplicity of the information.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

TAGGART, J.

Appellant' was convicted of the crime of forgery. The information charged the offense to have been committed by altering and changing from $1 to $10 a certain due bill, writing obligatory and clearing-house certificate issued by the Los Angeles clearing-house; and the form of the verdict of the jury was guilty as charged.

It is contended in support of this appeal (1) that the instrument alleged to have been forged is void; and (2) that the information charges both forging and uttering of a forged instrument, and that a verdict of guilty as charged leaves in doubt the question which of the two crimes was committed.

It is not necessary to pass upon the question of the legality or illegality of the “scrip” issue in order to sustain the judgment from the first attack. As said by the supreme court of this state in

People

Munroe,

100 Cal. 664, 670, [38 Am. St. Rep. 323, 35 Pac. 326]: “As to what contracts are against public policy, or

ultra vires,

or void as creations under unconstitutional statutes, we think matters entirely foreign to a prosecution for forgery. In the examination of such grave and abstruse questions, the criminal element of the case would soon be lost to view. ’ ’ Again, in the same opinion, it is said: “It is apparent that the character of the writing is quite insignificant when placed in the balances opposite the other element—the intent to defraud. . . . The essential ingredients of the crime of forgery are: 1. A false making of some instrument; 2. A fraudulent' intent; 3. If genuine, the writing might injure another. The third element stated is expressly recognized by this court to be the true test as to the nature of the writing.” The language used in some of the cases “to the effect that the writing, if genuine, must be sufficient to form the basis of a legal liability, ... is not the true test. ... A forged contract', even though it covers a subject matter which makes it void, as against public policy, upon its face may present such an appearance, that, if genuine, it might injure another, and such a one satisfies the test which we have laid down.”

The same rule is laid down in

People

James,

People v. Collins

AI Brief

Synopsis

TAGGART, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief