People v. Johnson (1907) · DecisionDepot

People v. Johnson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Dec 16, 1907 No. Crim. No. 111.Published

Before: Hall

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the information was legally sufficient to charge forgery, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because the defendant signed his own name to a receipt, and the prosecution failed to prove the specific offense charged.

Issues

Whether an information charging forgery is sufficient if it does not explicitly allege how the instrument could defraud the victim.
Whether the evidence supports a forgery conviction when the defendant signs his own name to a receipt he was authorized to execute.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is sufficient that the forged instrument might be used to perpetrate a fraud, and it is not necessary to set out in detail how the fraud could be effected.”

“Treated as a receipt the instrument was clearly the instrument of the defendant. He had a perfect right to sign his name thereto”

“For the reasons above set forth the evidence does not support the verdict, and the court should have granted a new trial.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Praneisco, and from order denying a motion in arrest of judgment and denying a new trial. Carroll Cook, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

HALL, J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime1 of forgery, and appealed to this court from the judgment, the order denying his motion in arrest of judgment, and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

No demurrer was filed to the information, but defendant, on his motion for an arrest of judgment, attacked, and now attacks, the information upon the ground that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense. (Pen. Code, see. 1012.)

The information charges that the defendant, Thomas Johnson, did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, falsely, fraudulently, and with intent to prejudice, damage and defraud the United Railroads of San Francisco, a corporation, make, alter, forge and counterfeit a certain instrument in writing in the words and figures following, to wit:

- “Date........190......Page 0330, No. 4517.

“Name, Francis A.

“Received of the United Railroads of San Francisco, $11.25 in full for services to Jan. 12, 1907.

“Francis A., “signature.”

—and further charges in the usual form that he then and there uttered the same to one Ivor Jones, then and there the assistant treasurer of said United Railroads of San Francisco, with intent to defraud said United Railroads, knowing the same to be altered, forged and counterfeit.

The point urged against the information is that it does not appear that the United Railroads could have been injured by the instrument set forth, it being upon its face a receipt, evidencing payment of money by the United Railroads to the signer of the receipt.

[129]

Where it does not appear from the face of the instrument that the instrument forged could work an injury to the person alleged to have been intended to be defrauded, extrinsic facts must be alleged sufficient to show that such party could have been defrauded thereby. On the contrary, if the instrument appears on its face to be one prohibited to be forged by the statute, and appears on its face to be one that may work a fraud on the person intended to be defrauded, it is not necessary to allege how such person could be defrauded.

People v. Johnson

AI Brief

Synopsis

HALL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief