Skip to main content

Fox v. People

Citations

  • 95 Ill. 71
  • 1880 Ill. LEXIS 149

Syllabus

<p>1. ÍOBGEKT—intent to defraud person named must be proved. It is necessary to prove, on the trial of one indicted for forgery, an intent to defraud the person named in the indictment as intended to be defrauded. This intent may be clearly shown by proof of uttering the forged instrument, and if not passed, circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>2. Same—admissions of other forgeries. Evidence of statements or admis-</p> <p>sions in reference to the note for the forgery of which the person accused is being tried' are admissible, but what he has said of another note said to have been forged is not admissible to prove the charge on which he is being tried.</p> <p>3. Where the statements or admissions of an accused are improperly admitted in evidence, it is equally improper to refer to them in an instruction.</p> <p>4. Same—presumption of intent to defraud. There is no presumption of law of an intent to defraud from proof that the accused has actually forged a note on another person when he has not uttered the same, but this is a question of fact for the jury to find from the evidence, as, his possession of the same and the surrounding circumstances. The possession of the forged paper, while evidence tending to prove a fraudulent intent, is not conclusive. The circumstances may clearly repel any presumption of guilt.</p> <p>5. The merely falsely making of a note without the intent to defraud some one, does not constitute the crime of forgery.</p> <p>6. Criminal law—instruction as to flight. It is error to instruct a jury, on the trial of one for an alleged crime, that his flight is evidence of guilt. It is only evidence tending to prove guilt. Nor should the court tell the jury that if flight was proved, it must be satisfactorily explained consistent with the innocence of the accused. This might be understood as requiring him to prove an innocent purpose beyond doubt.</p> <p>7. Same—proof of good character. The court has no right, by an instruction, to tell the jury that proo

Judges: Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.