C. L. TILLIS ALIAS HENRY C. VAUGHN,
v.
STATE. (TWO CASES)
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.
C. L. Tillis (alias Henry C. Vaughn) was convicted of uttering a forged bank check under consolidated informations. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting his argument that he could not be convicted of uttering a forged instrument when the jury did not find him guilty of the underlying forgery.
The court held that the defendant could lawfully be convicted of uttering a forged instrument even though the jury did not find him guilty of committing the forgery. A jury could have convicted him on any or all counts of either information based on the evidence presented.
“It is the contention of the defendant that because the jury did not find him guilty of committing the forgery charged, it could not lawfully return a verdict against him for the offens'e of uttering the alleged forged instrument. The contention is without merit.”
The court's direct rejection of the defendant's principal argument on appeal, establishing that uttering and forgery are separate offenses that can be tried and decided independently.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTillis was charged under two informations: the first information contained two counts charging forgery and uttering of a forged bank check; the second…
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 Uttering A Forged Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was convicted under a second count of an information in two counts, charging in the first count that he unlawfully, falsely and fraudulently did forge a certain bank check; and in the second count, that he did unlawfully utter and publish as true a certain false, forged and counterfeited bank check.
There were two informations returned against the defendant and by stipulation defendant was tried under both informations at the same time and before the same jury. In other words, the two informations were consolidated, which accounts for the fact that the jury found the defendant guilty under the “fourth count.”
No exception was taken to the form of the verdict and it was conceded by counsel for the defendant that the verdict referred to the Second Count of the Second information.
No question is presented here challenging the form of the verdict or its application to the Second Count of the Second information.
It is the contention of the defendant that because the jury did not find him guilty of committing the forgery charged, it could not lawfully return a verdict against him for the offens'e of uttering the alleged forged instrument.
The contention is without merit. If the evidence had been considered by the jury to be sufficient the defendant could have been convicted upon each and every count of *649both informations, or he might have been convicted on either information.
The evidence has been examined and found amply sufficient to sustain the verdict.
.Upon consideration of the whole record, we find no reversible error and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Eli.is, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.