Langford v. State

Citations

• 33 Fla. 233

Syllabus

<p>1. On the trial of an accused for uttering an instrument having on it forged endorsements, knowing at the time that they were forged, and with an intent to defraud and injure, the utterance by the defendant near the same time, but previously, of other notes with forged endorsements, and his possession and attempting to negotiate subsequently, but near the same time, another note with forged endorsements on it, and a guaranty to one of the makers thereof with forged signatures, are admissible as evidence that defendant knew, when he uttered the instrument described in the information, that the endorsements were forged, and of a criminal intent in uttering the same.</p> <p>2. Evidence that the accused had, at the time of uttering the forged instrument described in the information, knowledge that other forged instruments testified to have been uttered by him or to have been in his possession and used by him were forgeries, is not necessary to entitle the consideration of the latter by the jury-</p> <p>3. An instruction to the effect that if the jury found the former life of the accused was such that the criminal act charged would not naturally and reasonably find place in it, they might permit such conclusion to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt, although the evidence satisfied them that he had committed the act charged, and if it did raise such a doubt they must acquit, is not a charge upon the law of the case, nor is it correct, as a principle to guide the jury in reaching a verdict; and was properly refused.</p> <p>4. Testimony as to previous excellent character of the accused will not justify interference with a conviction where, conceding such character, it is fully supported by the evidence.</p>