Court: California Court of Appeal; June 29, 1951; California; State Appellate Court
John Henry Lewis was convicted of two counts of forgery under Penal Code section 470, specifically for forging checks made out to "Robert Washington" and "Robert Washington, Jr." The first check, dated September 26, 1949, was for $325, while the second, dated September 19, 1949, was for $65. Both checks were signed by "Pauline Salisbury Co." and endorsed by "Robert Washington."
The evidence presented at trial included testimony that Lewis was familiar with Pauline Salisbury, who operated a furniture store and had previously issued him valid checks. Notably, Lewis had assisted Salisbury with writing checks due to her difficulty with writing. The teller at the Bank of America testified that Lewis attempted to cash the $325 check and exhibited suspicious behavior, especially since a previous check for $65 had been returned due to a signature irregularity. After consulting with a bank officer, the teller found Lewis had left without claiming the check. Lewis was later arrested in November 1949, and the teller identified him as the individual who attempted to cash the check.
On appeal, Lewis argued that the evidence was insufficient, claimed he was convicted based on perjured testimony, and contended that he was prejudiced by the court's refusal to grant a continuance or to issue subpoenas for certain witnesses. However, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that no trial errors occurred.
Defendant claimed ignorance of two checks and denied any involvement when arrested. Mrs. Salisbury testified she did not authorize the checks dated September 19 and 26. At trial, defendant admitted to writing the endorsement "Robert Washington" on the $325 check and all handwriting on the $65 check but denied cashing either. He presented a convoluted and unsupported narrative of being kidnapped and forced to endorse the checks, asserting he reported this to the Berkeley police, who denied any such complaint. The kidnapping date of July 31, 1949, coincided with an altercation he had with a Charlie Heard or Hard, unrelated to the checks. Notably, defendant did not know Mrs. Salisbury at that time and only met her on August 9, 1949. He did not inform her or anyone else about his involvement with the checks, claiming a police inspector advised him to remain silent, a statement the inspector refuted.
To support his alibi, defendant stated he was not in Berkeley on the dates the checks were attempted to be cashed. He claimed to have been in Hayward seeking employment from September 19 to 21, a claim he could not corroborate. For September 26, he asserted he left Oakland for Los Angeles the night before, staying with relatives until September 30. His presence in Los Angeles was partially verified by Mr. Burke and Reverend Peters, who confirmed defendant's company during hospital visits, though they could not specify the exact dates. Mr. Burke related the visit start date to Mrs. Burke's dental appointment, which he remembered occurred on the same day defendant arrived.
Defendant's testimony regarding the dates of visits to hospitals and a funeral parlor was contradicted by another witness, who placed these events several days later than the defendant claimed. Mrs. Burke, who lacked independent recollection, fixed the date of the defendant's visit as September 26, 1949, based on her dental appointment that day. However, she acknowledged that her dental history made it difficult to ascertain the significance of that date. There is a reasonable inference that the visit occurred about a week later than the defendant testified.
Upon his arrest in November 1949, the defendant was employed under the name William Draper. He claimed to have used the alias John Henry Lewis during his boxing career in the army, expressing confusion about his acquaintance with Robert Washington, ultimately admitting he had worked under that name. Washington denied having provided the defendant with a union card. The defendant also admitted to a prior conviction for grand theft in 1937.
The jury found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, rejecting the defendant's kidnapping claims and alibi for September 21 and 26, 1949, deeming corroborating testimonies from Peters and the Burkes as unsatisfactory. The jury accepted the bank teller's identification of the defendant attempting to cash a check and resolved credibility conflicts against him.
The defendant's assertion that he was convicted based on perjured testimony was dismissed as unsupported. He also claimed prejudice from a denied continuance request; however, after the prosecution rested, his counsel requested a brief continuance to bring in witnesses who had failed to appear. The court granted this request, allowing the defendant to present his case without prejudice. Furthermore, the defendant's claims regarding unserved subpoenas for other witnesses lacked supporting records and were not considered on appeal.
Defendant, representing himself, raised several points regarding the case, including a specific issue about the prosecution's introduction of a $10 check allegedly forged by him. The check, dated September 27, 1949, was drawn on the Oakland Bank of Commerce, made out to "Earle E. Remington," and endorsed by "Pauline Salisbury." It was presented for cashing by an unidentified white man, while the defendant is identified as a Negro. Expert testimony indicated that the defendant wrote the check, which was linked to a separate forgery charge that had been dismissed during the preliminary hearing. Despite this dismissal, the court found the admission of the check's evidence appropriate, referencing California case law that allows evidence of a dismissed charge to be used in a current trial to demonstrate guilty knowledge. The judgment from the trial court was affirmed, with justices Bray and Wood concurring.
