People v. Kauffman

California Court of Appeal Dec 9, 1941 No. Crim. No. 3464Published

Before: McComb

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a forgery conviction under Penal Code section 470 and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings. The court further held that an order granting probation is not an appealable order.

Issues

Is the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for forgery?
Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings?
Is an order granting probation an appealable order?

Disposition. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“From the evidence and facts set forth above the trial court properly found that defendant was guilty of forgery, since such evidence shows that defendant with intent to defraud signed the name of another person to a cheek.”

“An order granting probation and suspending the pronouncement of judgment and sentence, as was done in the instant case, is not an appealable order”

McCOMB, J. Defendant was found guilty of forgery after trial before the court without a jury. From orders (1) granting him probation and (2) denying his motion for a new trial he appeals.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the people (respondent), the essential facts are:

Defendant, who is known as Harry Lieb or Harry Kauffman, went to the main office of the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, obtained a book of blank checks and a signature card. .Thereafter, he took the blank checks to a printer and had the name “Warren F. Clark, M. D., 7046 Hollywood Blvd.” printed on them. On June 17, 1940, he tendered to J. W. Robinson Company in payment of merchandise a check- which he had written reading thus:

“16-5 LOS ANGELES MAIN OFFICE ' 16-15

660 SOUTH SPRING STREET

BANK OF AMERICA ' No.. 452

NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSOCIATION

“FOR LOS ANGELES, CALIF., June 35, 1940 LUGGAGE

‘.‘Pay to the , ,

order of J. W. Robinson Co. $180 25/xx

“ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS

and 25/xx DOLLARS

“WARREN F. CLARK, M. D.

‘‘7046 HOLLYWOOD BLVD. Warren F. Clark. ’’

[395]At the time he presented the check, the clerk for J. W. Robinson Company asked defendant if he was Dr. Warren F. Clark, to which defendant nodded that he was. Later the cashier of the store asked defendant if he was Dr. Warren P. Clark and he stated that he was. Defendant admitted that he had no authority from Dr. Warren P. Clark to write the check. Neither did he have an account with the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association.

Defendant relies for reversal of the order denying his motion for a new trial on these propositions:

First: The evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction because there was (a) no forgery, (b) no showing of any lack of authority upon the part of defendant to sign the name Dr. Warren F. Clark, and (c) no intention to defraud.

People v. Kauffman

AI Brief

NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSOCIATION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief