Avila v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado

Avila v. People

431 P.2d 782, 163 Colo. 525, 1967 Colo. LEXIS 921

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedSeptember 18, 1967

Docket22271

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 431 P.2d 782 (Avila v. People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avila v. People, 431 P.2d 782, 163 Colo. 525, 1967 Colo. LEXIS 921 (Colo. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The above named plaintiff in error, hereinafter re *526 ferred to as the defendant, is here on writ of error seeking reversal of a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury which found him guilty of the crime of forgery.

The thrust of the argument made by counsel for defendant is that, even though the evidence established the fact that the defendant Catarino R. Avila endorsed a check made payable to one Gabino M. Mendoza by signing the name of the payee and thereby receiving cash and merchandise for the check; and even though the defendant represented himself to be Gabino M. Mendoza and gave an address which was non existent as his place of residence, he should be discharged for the reason that the district attorney failed to prove that Gabino M. Mendoza, the payee, had not authorized the defendant to endorse the check and receive the proceeds thereof. The contention is that there was no evidence that the check was a “false instrument.”

In order to prove the corpus delicti in a forgery case, it is not necessary to show by testimony of the maker or payee of a check that no authority was given the accused to sign his name. Such lack of authorization may be proved circumstantially. From 37 C.J.S. Forgery § 96, we quote:

“That accused made or participated in the making of the forgery may be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. The person whose signature is forged is not an indispensable witness; * * * Where accused has represented himself as being the person whose signature is forged, his conviction of forgery is warranted; and this is so where he has made other misstatements, and his actions in connection with the forged instrument are suspicious or he has endeavored afterward to destroy it. * * *” (Emphasis added.)

Pertinent to the point under discussion are the following cases recently decided by this court. Rhodus v. People, 160 Colo. 407, 418 P.2d 42; Barker v. People, 158 Colo. 381, 407 P.2d 34.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The above named plaintiff in error, hereinafter re *526 ferred to as the defendant, is here on writ of error seeking reversal of a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury which found him guilty of the crime of forgery.

The thrust of the argument made by counsel for defendant is that, even though the evidence established the fact that the defendant Catarino R. Avila endorsed a check made payable to one Gabino M. Mendoza by signing the name of the payee and thereby receiving cash and merchandise for the check; and even though the defendant represented himself to be Gabino M. Mendoza and gave an address which was non existent as his place of residence, he should be discharged for the reason that the district attorney failed to prove that Gabino M. Mendoza, the payee, had not authorized the defendant to endorse the check and receive the proceeds thereof. The contention is that there was no evidence that the check was a “false instrument.”

In order to prove the corpus delicti in a forgery case, it is not necessary to show by testimony of the maker or payee of a check that no authority was given the accused to sign his name. Such lack of authorization may be proved circumstantially. From 37 C.J.S. Forgery § 96, we quote:

“That accused made or participated in the making of the forgery may be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. The person whose signature is forged is not an indispensable witness; * * * Where accused has represented himself as being the person whose signature is forged, his conviction of forgery is warranted; and this is so where he has made other misstatements, and his actions in connection with the forged instrument are suspicious or he has endeavored afterward to destroy it. * * *” (Emphasis added.)

Pertinent to the point under discussion are the following cases recently decided by this court. Rhodus v. People, 160 Colo. 407, 418 P.2d 42; Barker v. People, 158 Colo. 381, 407 P.2d 34.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 P.2d 782, 163 Colo. 525, 1967 Colo. LEXIS 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avila-v-people-colo-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack