UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES ALEX BOLLIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court properly declared a witness unavailable and committed no prejudicial error during the trial or in refusing a continuance.
Defendant Bollin was convicted of forgery and uttering after cashing a check. He claimed the payee endorsed it after receiving full payment in cash, b…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unavailable Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant James Bollin appeals from a conviction by a jury on two counts of forgery and uttering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 495 (1976).
There is no dispute over' the fact that Bollin cashed the check in question at the Birdwell Grocery, thereafter paying Birdwell $50 that he, Bollin, owed him, and paying off a $10 debt to one Casteel who had given him a ride to the grocery store. Appellant’s claim is that the payee of the check, Brown, an 83-year-old man, had signed his name as endorser of the check after he, Bollin, had given him the full amount of the check in cash. The government, however, presented six witnesses who testified that Brown always signed his checks with an “X” because he could not write his name, and other witnesses who testified as to Brown’s incompetence at the time of this transaction, and as to his complaints that his checks were being stolen.
Our review of this record convinces us that Brown was properly declared an unavailable witness by the District Judge. Further, we hold that no prejudicial error took place during the course of this trial. We also rule that the District Judge was not in error in refusing a continuance on the day of trial.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.