People v. Luse
Before: McComb
McCOMB, J. From judgments of guilty on (1) three counts of forgery and (2) twelve counts of violating section 115 of the Penal Code1 after trial before a jury, defendant appeals.
The record being viewed pursuant to the rules set forth in People v. Pianezzi, 42 Cal.App.2d 270, 277 [108 P.2d 685], discloses these facts: Defendant altered without authority three stock certificates of the Mo-Lo Corporation and filed or caused to be filed for record more than 12 false or forged documents.
Questions: First: Was there substantial evidence to sustain the judgments of guilty?
This question must be answered in the affirmative.
Counts One to Three Inclusive
Witnesses testified that in April, 1941, defendant caused the Mo-Lo Corporation to issue to his wife, Mrs. Gladys P. Luse, three stock certificates in which her name appeared as the owner. She placed these stock certificates in her safe deposit vault where they remained until the first part of 1944. She then noticed that they were not in her box and learned upon inquiry from defendant that he had removed them and taken them to his office. Difficulties having arisen between defendant and his wife she employed an attorney and on November 14,1944, defendant delivered to the attorney the three stock certificates just mentioned which showed Gladys P. Luse as the owner. Defendant admitted that after he had received [202]the certificates back from Mrs. Luse’s attorney he scratched out the name of Mrs. Luse on each of the stock certificates and inserted in lieu thereof the name of his mother. Mrs. Luse testified that she had never authorized defendant to make any changes in the certificates.
Clearly the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty on counts one, two and three.
Counts Four to Fifteen Inclusive
An examination of the record discloses that defendant recorded or caused to be recorded more than 12 documents each of which was false. It would serve no useful purpose to detail each and every document and the method used by defendant to obtain or create it. It is sufficient to give a typical example of the way defendant operated, to wit:
Witness King testified that he had a conversation with defendant relative to People’s Exhibit 4, which purported to be a power of attorney and assignment signed by defendant’s wife, Gladys P. Luse, and which document was filed October 5,1945, in the official records of Los Angeles County. The witness testified that defendant referred to this document as “his masterpiece,” and that he explained to the witness how he had fraudulently obtained his wife’s signature to the document and how he had obtained through fraud the notary’s acknowledgment to the instrument.
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)