Harris v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Harris v. State

506 A.2d 655, 67 Md. App. 92, 1986 Md. App. LEXIS 299

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

DecidedApril 3, 1986

DocketNo. 801

StatusPublished

This text of 506 A.2d 655 (Harris v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. State, 506 A.2d 655, 67 Md. App. 92, 1986 Md. App. LEXIS 299 (Md. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

WEANT, Judge.

Johnnie Lee Harris was charged with forging a bill of exchange and uttering a false or forged bill of exchange in violation of Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 44. The evidence adduced in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County disclosed that appellant forged the indorsement on the back of an otherwise valid check and then cashed it. Relying on Green v. State, 32 Md.App. 567, 363 A.2d 530 (1976), the trial court granted appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the forgery count. The court refused, however, to dismiss the uttering charge and found Harris guilty of uttering a false bill of exchange.

In Green, this Court held that because Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 44 separately listed indorsement of a bill of exchange as a subject of forgery, “a person may not be convicted of forging a check when the proof shows that he forged only an indorsement.” Id. at 573, 363 A.2d at 534. Because art. 27, § 44 also separately lists indorsement of a bill of exchange as a subject of uttering, we find that this Court’s holding in Green supports appellant’s claim that there is a fatal variance between the crime established at trial and the crime for which he stands convicted.

JUDGMENT REVERSED.

COSTS TO BE PAID BY QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY.

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

WEANT, Judge.

Johnnie Lee Harris was charged with forging a bill of exchange and uttering a false or forged bill of exchange in violation of Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 44. The evidence adduced in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County disclosed that appellant forged the indorsement on the back of an otherwise valid check and then cashed it. Relying on Green v. State, 32 Md.App. 567, 363 A.2d 530 (1976), the trial court granted appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the forgery count. The court refused, however, to dismiss the uttering charge and found Harris guilty of uttering a false bill of exchange.

In Green, this Court held that because Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 44 separately listed indorsement of a bill of exchange as a subject of forgery, “a person may not be convicted of forging a check when the proof shows that he forged only an indorsement.” Id. at 573, 363 A.2d at 534. Because art. 27, § 44 also separately lists indorsement of a bill of exchange as a subject of uttering, we find that this Court’s holding in Green supports appellant’s claim that there is a fatal variance between the crime established at trial and the crime for which he stands convicted.

JUDGMENT REVERSED.

COSTS TO BE PAID BY QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 A.2d 655, 67 Md. App. 92, 1986 Md. App. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-mdctspecapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack