Court: California Court of Appeal; December 16, 1957; California; State Appellate Court
Charles Chapman was convicted of six counts of forgery and one count of grand theft and subsequently appealed the judgment. The case details a series of fraudulent transactions involving checks.
In the first count, on August 29, 1955, Chapman asked Mrs. Nettie Brandt to cash a check for him, which she initially refused due to insufficient funds but later allowed her daughter, Ruth Lander, to cash it. The check, dated August 30, 1955, was made out for $25 to Robert Weldon and purportedly signed by Irving W. Parker, who had not authorized the signature. Lander received $1.15 in merchandise and cash, but the check was later dishonored, resulting in no repayment to her.
Further investigation revealed that checks from Trip-Charge, Inc. were missing, and a checking account in the name of Robert Weldon was opened at Citizens National Bank with an initial deposit of $50 on August 30, using fraudulent checks, including one signed by Parker without his authorization.
On September 2, 1955, a $400 check purportedly signed by Nancy Akin from Radio Audience Testing Bureau was deposited by Weldon, who had similarly lost checks from his checkbook. Finally, on September 6, Chapman presented another check for $200 drawn on his account, indicating a pattern of fraudulent activity. None of the individuals whose names were forged authorized the signatures.
The teller cashed a $200 check from the defendant without requiring identification, only verifying sufficient funds in the account. In September 1955, Ralph's Grocery Company cashed two $50 checks, both dated and purportedly signed by Mr. Parker, but he did not authorize these signatures. The employees who cashed the checks did not remember the person who presented them. The defendant did not testify or present evidence in his defense. Under California law, forgery involves the false creation or alteration of a document or using such a document with intent to defraud. For a conviction of forgery by uttering a forged instrument, it is necessary to show that: 1) the instrument was presented as genuine; 2) the presenter knew it was false; and 3) there was intent to defraud. The court assumes the jury made reasonable deductions from evidence. Sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction for presenting a forged check to Mrs. Lander, including his implied representation that the check was genuine when asked about cashing it early. The circumstances indicated the defendant likely claimed to be Robert Weldon, the named payee, and the endorsements on the check supported this inference. Possession of a recently forged instrument serves as evidence against the possessor, reinforcing the conviction.
Defendant did not testify to clarify how he obtained possession of a forged check, which the jury could interpret as an indication of guilt. His silence in the face of evidence against him may imply the truth of that evidence, leading the jury to reasonably infer he knew the check was forged. Established law suggests that the act of forging implies intent to defraud, and this applies equally when passing a forged check. There is a presumption that unlawful acts are performed with unlawful intent, and the circumstances surrounding the act can reveal intent. Evidence indicated that the defendant knowingly passed the check without authorization from the purported signatory, resulting in his receipt of goods and money. The jury found that he intended to defraud Mrs. Lander, who was indeed defrauded. The defendant faced multiple counts of forgery for checks of varying amounts, all connected to a bank account under the name Robert Weldon. The teller identified the defendant as having withdrawn funds from this account using a check that was presented as genuine, thus allowing the jury to compare his handwriting to determine its authenticity without needing expert testimony.
In the case of People v. Storke, the jury established that the defendant had signed the signature card for the Robert Weldon checking account, endorsed three checks with the name "Robert Weldon," and filled out the deposit slips for those checks. The evidence demonstrated that the defendant had a fraudulent connection to these checks, as he passed them as genuine with intent to commit fraud.
Counts II and III pertain to two $50 checks cashed at Ralph's Grocery Company, which the defendant argued he was not connected to, as the employees did not recall who cashed them. However, circumstantial evidence linked the checks to the defendant, as they were drawn on the same form as a previous fraudulent transaction and bore a similar signature. The jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant endorsed these checks based on comparisons with his handwriting from an earlier check.
Count V charged the defendant with grand theft under Penal Code section 484, which includes obtaining money through false pretenses. The evidence indicated that the defendant knowingly deposited forged checks into his account and subsequently cashed a $200 check without having credit with the bank, thus committing theft through deceit. The court found that there was ample evidence to support the defendant's conviction on this count.
The purported appeal regarding the denial of a motion for a new trial was dismissed due to the absence of such a motion in the record. The judgment was affirmed with concurrence from the justices.
