State v. McGuff

Citations

• 104 Wash. 501
• 177 P. 316
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 1208

Syllabus

<p>Forgery (4) — Information—Duplicity. An information for forgery is not duplicitous in charging -the forgery of a check with intent to defraud and of knowingly uttering the check with intent to defraud, as parts of one connected act continuous in point of time.</p> <p>Same (4). An information charging that accused feloniously forged a check imports an intent to defraud.</p> <p>Criminal Law (452) — Appeal—Harmless Error — Instructions. An instruction as to forgery, putting a greater burden on the state than called for* is not prejudicial to defendant.</p> <p>Same (259-2620 — Trial—Instructions—Comments—Assumptions. In a prosecution for forgery, an instruction to the jury, if they find that defendant passed the check with intent to defraud, will not be held as a comment upon or an assumption of the facts, where it could not have misled the jury, and the passing was not a matter in issue.</p> <p>Same (54) — Former Jeopardy — Identity of Offenses — Forgery of Different Checks — Identification by Witness. In a prosecution for forgery and altering one of two identical checks passed by the accused on the same day, the fact that the prosecuting witness, when on the stand, could not identify and state on which check the prosecution was based, does not operate as denial of the right to plead former jeopardy, where the check in suit had identifying marks, and the prosecuting attorney stated that the prosecution was based upon it.</p> <p>Same (159) — Evidence (218) — Comparison of Handwriting. In a prosecution for forgery, a bank officer who had never seen the accused write or paid any of his checks, cannot give his opinion that the accused had written and signed the check, based upon a comparison of the handwriting with an unauthenticated bank identification card from the bank’s filing system, containing the purported signature of the accused.</p>