ARCHIE MILLER, ALIAS HENRY HARPER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a forgery conviction where the State failed to establish that the defendant wrote the forged check, particularly after the trial court excluded the only writing samples that could have proven the defendant's handwriting.
The Court reversed the conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the defendant committed the forgery because there was no reliable proof of the defendant's handwriting and no evidence he cashed the check or even possessed it.
“While the indictment may lack the certainty required by the Common Law, we think it sufficiently charged the crime to satisfy the requirements of our law.”
Establishes that the indictment itself was adequate despite any technical deficiencies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArchie Miller was indicted for forgery, specifically for counterfeiting the payee's name by endorsement on a check. At trial, the State attempted to p…
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 Forgery cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is a writ of error to a judgment of conviction of the crime of forgery. The indictment alleges the forgery to consist in counterfeiting the name of the -payee in a check.
A motion in very general terms to quash the indictment was interposed and overruled. While the indictment may lack the certainty required by the Common Law, we think it sufficiently charged the crime to satisfy the requirements of our law. The instrument is set out in full and shows itself to be a check on a bank, and the fact that the pleader also styled it an order for money does not vitiate the indictment. Reading the whole indictment it appears with sufficient clearness that the crime consisted in forging the payee’s name by endorsement on the check, and this was the case sought to be made by the State at the trial.
The evidence gives us greater concern. It is not shown that the accused cashed the check, and only by a remote probability that he had the check in his possession. The State attempted to prove the handwriting by a deputy sheriff. The court ruled out writings that the accused made at the preliminary trial before the committing magistrate, and we find nothing else in the record to prove that this witness ever saw any writing of the accused. There is testimony that the witness had intercepted letters and notes sent from the jail by the accused where 'he was being held awaiting trial, but the witness does not testify that he saw this man write them. In fact putting aside the testimony stricken by the court there is no proof that he could write at all.
We are, therefore, unwilling to sustain a conviction upon this evidence, and the judgment is accordingly reversed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford and Ellis, JJ., concur. Whitfield, J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1923)…verruling the motion to quash and the motion in arrest of judgment was not error. Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 South. Rep. 894; King v. State, 43 Fla. 211, 31 South. Rep. 254; Turnipseed v. State, 45 Fla. 110, 33 South. Rep. 851; Miller v. State, 71 Fla. 338, 71 South. Rep. 280; Jernigan v. State, 83 Fla. 74, 90 South. Rep. 699; Poage v. State, 3 Ohio St. 229; 12 R. C. L. 141; 26 C. J. §16, p. 921; United States v. Jolly, 37 Fed. Rep. 108; Fry v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. Rep. 435, 182 S. W. Rep. 331, 332; Sau…
-
Meyers v. State, 84 Fla. 508 (Fla. 1922)…ent in describing an alleged forged instrument when the instrument itself is contained in the indictment and shows upon its face the inaccuracy of the descriptive words employed in referring to it. 1 Wharton Crim. Proc. Section 683; Miller v. State, 71 Fla. 338, 78 South. Rep. 280; People v. Kemp, 76 Mich. 410, 43 N. W. Rep. 439; Garmire v. State, 104 Ind. 444, 4 N. E. Rep. 54; Powers v. State, 87 Ind. 97. The names “Strahn” appearing as drawer of the check set out'in the indictment and “Strahm” appearing…
-
Minger v. State, 91 Fla. 79 (Fla. 1926)…. R. Mathis and some person or persons to the Grand Jury unknown.” That the motion to quash the indictment was properly denied is well established by the decisions of this court. Smith v. The State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. 895; Miller v. The State, 71 Fla. 338, 71 So. 280; Akin v. The State, 86 Fla. 564; 98 So. 609. The “certain paper in writing” is set out in the indictment and shows itself to be a check on a bank, which is in effect an order for money within the meaning of Section 5206 of the Revised…