Owens v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Owens v. State

78 So. 423, 16 Ala. App. 413, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 91

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1918

Docket8 Div. 537.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 78 So. 423 (Owens v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Owens v. State, 78 So. 423, 16 Ala. App. 413, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 91 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1, 2] Before a defendant can be convicted of uttering a forged instrument, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a forged instrument, and that the defendant, knowing the instrument to he forged, with the intent to defraud, uttered it. The check in evidence purported to have been signed by Raymond Bradford, and was made payable to the order of Tom Jones, for $5.06. Bradford testified: “I had these checks made myself; that is, just exactly like the check I used. * * * I never issued a check of that character to this man. * * * I did not issue the cheek.”

This was all the evidence tending to prove the forgery. All of this may have been true, and yet no forgery have occurred. There is nothing in the evidence to show that Bradford did not authorize the signing of the check.

*414 From the facts as disclosed by the bill of exceptions, the court erred in refusing to give the general charge as requested by the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1, 2] Before a defendant can be convicted of uttering a forged instrument, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a forged instrument, and that the defendant, knowing the instrument to he forged, with the intent to defraud, uttered it. The check in evidence purported to have been signed by Raymond Bradford, and was made payable to the order of Tom Jones, for $5.06. Bradford testified: “I had these checks made myself; that is, just exactly like the check I used. * * * I never issued a check of that character to this man. * * * I did not issue the cheek.”

This was all the evidence tending to prove the forgery. All of this may have been true, and yet no forgery have occurred. There is nothing in the evidence to show that Bradford did not authorize the signing of the check.

*414 From the facts as disclosed by the bill of exceptions, the court erred in refusing to give the general charge as requested by the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 423, 16 Ala. App. 413, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-state-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack