People v. Eppinger
Citations
- 105 Cal. 36
- 38 P. 538
- 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1105
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law—Forgery—Making of Fictitious Instrument—Improper Designation of Offense.—An information charging a defendant with forgery in making and forging a fictitious instrument purporting to be the check of a person who has no existence, with-intent to defraud, improperly designates the offense as forgery; but where the information specifies acts constituting the offense, under section 476 of the Penal Code, of making or passing a fictitious instrument in writing, and is sufficiently clear to show that the prosecution is under that section, the additional designation of the offense as “ forgery” is imma. terial.</p> <p>Id.—Forgery a Statutory Offense—Fictitious Check—Distinct Offense.—Forgery is a statutory offense, and the charge of that offense against the accused must be found within the terms of the statute; and though by the criminal law of England the making of a fictitious check would be punishable as a forgery, that offense is a distinct offense with a distinctly designated punishment, under section 476 of the Penal Code.</p> <p>Id.—Pleading—Sufficiency of Information—Presumption of Innocence.—An information must contain that which shows on its face that' a crime has been committed by the accused, and if the matters charged , in it are as consistent with the innocence of the accused as with his guilt, the presumption of his innocence will overcome the accusation of guilt, and the accused is not to be subjected to a trial of the charge.</p> <p>Id.—Character of Fictitious Signature—Copartnership Name—Insufficient Information.—Under section 476 of the Penal Code the essence of the offense is the making, with an intent to defraud another, of an obligation of some “bank, corporation, copartnership, or individual,” when in fact there is no such obligor in existence, and the information must state which class of obligors specified in the statute is claimed to have been assumed by the defendant; and an information setting out a fictitious check apparently sig
Judges: Harrison
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court· 1957-04-19· cited 200×
- People v. CrosbyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1962-11-09· cited 100×
- People v. AresenCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1949-03-31· cited 35×
- People v. RiversCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1961-01-12· cited 24×
- State v. StegnerSupreme Court of Missouri· 1918-12-23· cited 21×
- People v. CharlesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1963-08-01· cited 18×
- People v. MenneCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1935-01-24· cited 12×
- People v. GutkowskyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1963-08-12· cited 9×
- Morris v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyNebraska Supreme Court· 1922-12-08· cited 9×
- State v. WellardUtah Supreme Court· 1955-02-16· cited 8×
- People v. MartinCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1954-10-05· cited 7×
- People v. AdairCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1934-12-24· cited 5×
- People v. SlatteryCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1943-06-28· cited 5×
- Patterson v. StateArizona Supreme Court· 1923-06-26· cited 5×
- State v. WilliamsNevada Supreme Court· 1923-01-15· cited 5×
- State v. ZumwaltMontana Supreme Court· 1955-12-08· cited 4×
- Pueblo v. GonzálezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1911-12-20· cited 4×
- State v. BishopIdaho Supreme Court· 1965-09-23· cited 2×
- People v. LairdCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-09-15· cited 1×
- In re FerrariCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1934-12-14· cited 1×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.