Barker v. State

Citations

• 78 Fla. 477
• 83 So. 287

Syllabus

<p>1. It is proper that an indictment for forgery should set out the material parts of the alleged forged instrument that the court may be able to judge by inspection of the indictment whether from its terms the instrument is the subject of forgery.</p> <p>2. Much care should be taken in preparing an indictment for forgery which sets out the alleged forged instrument in words and figures, that the description of the instrument conforms in all essential particulars to the intsrument itself, which on the trial is offered to support the charge.</p> <p>3. The date and place where the instrument purports to have been drawn while part of the instrument may not be an essential and material part of the description s’o that the defendant would be prejudiced by a difference appearing between the description in the indictment and the instrument itself, but such difference and the further difference between tbe description of the instrument and the document itself in amount for which the instrument was drawn constitutes a fatal variance where the objection is properly-made ¡at the trial to the introduction in evidence of the alleged forged document.</p> <p>4. Where the pleader in preparing an indictment for forgery particularizes the instrument alleged to have been forged by setting out unnecessary marginal figures, characters, numbers, \\devices, etc., he will be held to strict proof according to the allegations.</p> <p>5'. Where in a prosecution for forgery the defense is that the person whose name apepars on the instrument as maker authorized the defendant to write it, and there is evidence in support of such defense, an instruction to the effect that the defendant should be acquitted if a reasonable doubt is entertained by the jury as to whether the defendant was so authorized t'o write the document is proper and should be given on request.</p>