![]() ![]() After his arrest, the defendant was interrogated by the police stated, in substance, that on May 27th he met two "fellows" who asked him if he needed money and, upon his reply in the affirmative, the three of them drove to a house which thereafter was entered by the two men, who returned and gave him an envelope containing purportedly executed checks, some of which bore his name as payee admitted that he cashed the check at the San Bernardino merchant's store and said that he also cashed the second check but, because he was drunk, he could not remember whether he cashed the third check. Nunn, bearing his check protector number, and payable to the defendant, were presented by him to two other merchants in exchange for merchandise purchased and cash. Two other stolen checks, also purportedly drawn by Mr. Nunn testified that he did not know the defendant did not sign the check in question, or authorize anyone else to do so and that he never drew or caused anyone else to draw any check for the defendant. In response to an inquiry by the merchant, the defendant stated that the check had been given him in payment for work which he had done for Mr. ![]() Nunn's registered check protector number purported to be signed by him and was made payable to the defendant. ![]() The check in question was one of those stolen from the accountant's office bore Mr. ![]() About six weeks thereafter the defendant presented the subject check, which he endorsed, to a San Bernardino merchant for which he received merchandise purchased and some cash. ) The printed checkbook containing numbered blank checks and the registered check protector of a man named Nunn were stolen from his accountant who kept the same. Under such circumstances, if there is any substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial, contradicted or uncontradicted, which supports the verdict, the judgment must be affirmed and the facts of the case will be stated accordingly. The sole issue on appeal arises from his contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the implied finding of the verdict against him that he had knowledge that the check in question was forged. The defendant was charged with the offense of passing a forged check, i.e., a violation of section 470 of the Penal Code, by an information alleging the same and also alleging his conviction of three other prior felony offenses pleaded not guilty to the charge but admitted the prior convictions was tried by a jury which found him guilty moved for a new trial which was denied was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison and appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |