Brown v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. State

162 S.E.2d 254, 117 Ga. App. 827, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1252

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 31, 1968

Docket43667

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 S.E.2d 254 (Brown v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. State, 162 S.E.2d 254, 117 Ga. App. 827, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1252 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. Knowledge that the instrument is forged is an essential ingredient of the crime of uttering a forged instrument. Code Ann. § 26-3910 (Cobb, 803; Ga. L. 1959, pp. 252, 253); Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 367; Stephens v. State, 56 Ga. 604; Rowland v. State, 90 Ga. App. 742, 743 (84 SE2d 209), and cit.

2. Where the jury found the defendant not guilty of forgery of a check in spite of the testimony of a handwriting expert that the endorsement on the check was made by the defendant, [828]*828where the only evidence that the check is a forgery is the bank’s marking thereon, “Unable to locate account,’’ and where there is no sufficient evidence that defendant had knowledge of the check’s forgery, there is not sufficient evidence in this record, connecting the defendant with the perpetration of the offense of uttering a forged check, to warrant the verdict of guilty of that offense.

Argued May 6, 1968 Decided May 31, 1968. M. Dale English, for appellant.

Judgment reversed.

Eberhardt and Whitman, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. Knowledge that the instrument is forged is an essential ingredient of the crime of uttering a forged instrument. Code Ann. § 26-3910 (Cobb, 803; Ga. L. 1959, pp. 252, 253); Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 367; Stephens v. State, 56 Ga. 604; Rowland v. State, 90 Ga. App. 742, 743 (84 SE2d 209), and cit.

2. Where the jury found the defendant not guilty of forgery of a check in spite of the testimony of a handwriting expert that the endorsement on the check was made by the defendant, [828]*828where the only evidence that the check is a forgery is the bank’s marking thereon, “Unable to locate account,’’ and where there is no sufficient evidence that defendant had knowledge of the check’s forgery, there is not sufficient evidence in this record, connecting the defendant with the perpetration of the offense of uttering a forged check, to warrant the verdict of guilty of that offense.

Argued May 6, 1968 Decided May 31, 1968. M. Dale English, for appellant.

Judgment reversed.

Eberhardt and Whitman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E.2d 254, 117 Ga. App. 827, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack