People v. Russell

SHINN, P. J. Jointly charged with one Sheremeta, Marie Jane Russell was convicted in a non jury trial of three offenses of forgery; the case was tried upon the evidence adduced at [223]the preliminary hearing. Appellant did not testify or offer other evidence. She applied for probation, which was denied, was sentenced to state prison and appeals from the judgment.

Evidence was produced of the following facts. Three checks in the amounts of $12.27, $27.50 and $15.20 were cashed at the 508 Club operated by Moorpark Enterprises. They were made payable to one Sheremeta, who was given the amounts of the several checks when he endorsed and presented them to employees of the club. The checks bore the purported signature of Leonard Klassen as maker. Klassen testified that he did not sign or authorize the signing of any of the checks. A fourth cheek for $200, purportedly signed by Klassen, named one Ayers as payee. All four checks were received in evidence.

Klassen testified that one evening he was drinking in company with appellant. Later he engaged a room in a hotel, placed a book of blank checks under the mattress and went to sleep. In the morning his money was gone and the blank checks also were missing. So far as he knew he was alone in the room during the night.

Officer Eldridge testified that he had a conversation with appellant while she was in custody. Her statements were made freely and voluntarily. He exhibited to her three of the checks and she stated she had made out the face of the checks and that her “boy friend” cashed them; she was drinking with Klassen one night; Klassen was quite drunk; he left the room; money amounting to $17 or $18 and the book of blank checks remained on the table; appellant took the money and the checks and went home in a taxi. The officer exhibited the fourth cheek for $200 and appellant said it was made out by her boy friend, and that she endorsed it in the name of one Ayers, in an attempt to open a savings account in that name. The witness also produced a writing, signed by appellant, which contained the admissions she had made orally. The writing and the testimony of the interview were received in evidence without objection. Upon cross-examination the officer testified that at the time of the interview and the signing of the statement by appellant she appeared to be “on the second day of D.T’s” and her condition was “very acute.” He did not tell her what penalty would be imposed, but he did tell her what the law prescribes as the penalty but that he did not have anything to do with her serving a maximum amount of time. The prosecution