People v. Lapique
Before: Gray
Synopsis
Forgery.—The Information Charged Defendant With Forging a Note purporting to have been executed to L. by M., and also with forging L.’s indorsement, and with uttering such forged instrument. At the trial the court withdrew the charges as to the indorsement and uttering, and instructed the jury to consider only the charge of forging the note itself. Held, that, the first charge being sufficient in itself, the contention of defendant on demurrer that the information was fatally defective by the insufficiency of the other charges was without merit.
Forgery.—By the Withdrawal of the Alleged Defective Charges, and the instruction given to the jury that they should consider only the charge admitted to be sufficient, any error which may have been made in overruling the demurrer to the information was rendered harmless.
Forgery.—On a Prosecution for Forgery, Wherein Genuine Specimens of the handwriting of defendant and of prosecuting witness were introduced, an expert on handwriting compared these exhibits, in the presence of the jury, with the signature to the note alleged to have been forged, and illustrated by drawings on a blackboard and by photographs the points of similarity and dissimilarity between them, and gave his opinion that the signature to the note was copied from the genuine signature of the prosecutor. There was evidence that defendant had had an opportunity to make such copy. Held, that, the genuineness of the signature being a question for the jury, the appellate court, not having the various examples of handwriting, blackboard illustrations and photographs before them, would not say that the evidence did not justify the jury in finding defendant guilty of forging the signature.
Forgery—New Trial.—On a Prosecution for Forgery, wherein the prosecutor testified that he did not sign the note in question, and two other witnesses testified that he had admitted the signature to be genuine, newly discovered evidence that the prosecutor had admitted that the signature to the note had been placed there by himself is not ground for a new trial, since it was merely cumulative and impeaching.
Forgery—Evidence of Motive.—On a Prosecution for Forgery, evidence that the party whose name was alleged to have been forged had money in bank and a house free from encumbrances, and that defendant knew him to be a man of means, is admissible to show the motive for the forgery.
Forgery.—An Instruction to the Jury in a Prosecution for forgery that, “if the prosecution does not show or establish by proof sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had no authority to sign the name” of the prosecutor, “then you must acquit the defendant,” taken in connection with other instructions implying that the jury must also be satisfied as. to the false character of the signature and that it was made by defendant, is not erroneous, as assuming that defendant made the signature in question.1
GRAY, C. The defendant was convicted of forgery, and sentenced to nine years in the state prison. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. Appellant contends that the information is insufficient, and that the demurrer thereto should have been sustained. The information charged defendant with forging an instrument in writing consisting of a promissory note for $800, purporting to be executed to one Louise Lagarde by one Maysounave, with intent to defraud the said Maysounave. [832]The information further charges that defendant forged the indorsement of the name “Louise Lagarde” on the hack of said instrument in writing, and also, with intent to defraud said Maysounave, uttered, published and passed said forged instrument as true and genuine. It is conceded that this information charges but one offense: People v. Leyshon, 108 Cal. 440, 41 Pac. 480; People v. Dole, 122 Cal. 486, 68 Am. St. Rep. 50, 55 Pac. 581. It is contended, however, that the information must, for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of its allegations, be treated as if it was intended to charge three distinct offenses—the first being the forgery of the note; the second, the forgery of the indorsement;' and, third, the uttering of the forged instrument; and it is claimed that the information fails to state the time and place of the forging of the indorsement, and therefore the information is fatally defective. We do not think this can be true. The information is full and complete as to the charge of forging the note. Indeed, it seems to be conceded that the information states facts sufficient to show that defendant committed the crime of forgery as to the note, and we think this concession is well founded. A reason for disregarding that portion of the information relating to the indorsement, and also the portion relating to the uttering and passing of the instrument', arose at the trial. There was no evidence tending to show any uttering or passing of- the instrument as indorsed, and no evidence that the indorsement of the name “Louise Lagarde” was forged; and accordingly the jury were instructed by the court that as to those charges the prosecution had failed to make out a case and defendant could not be found guilty thereon. The court withdrew these two charges from the consideration of the jury, and instructed the jury that they were to consider the evidence and determine the facts with regard only to the charge of forging the note. The case then went to the jury on the single charge last referred to, and any error that may have been made in overruling the demurrer to the information was thus rendered harmless to the defendant.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)