JOHN EDWARD RAPP, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
John Edward Rapp was convicted of uttering a forged instrument for writing worthless checks under an assumed name. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that forgery requires intent that the signature be taken as the genuine signature of another person, not merely intent to defraud.
A person does not commit forgery by signing checks with an assumed or fictitious name unless the signature is intended to be taken as the genuine signature of another person. The signing of a fictitious name is not forgery if it does not purport to be the act of another person but rather the act of the person issuing the check.
[1] The crime of forgery requires that a writing falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud.
[2] The offense of forgery may exist even though the name used is an assumed or fictitious name, when it is shown that the assumed or fictitious name was used with intent to…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The crime of forgery requires the making of a writing, which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud.”
Establishes the elements required for forgery under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRapp opened a checking account under the assumed name 'Grover Henry Leverette' with a $100 deposit. Two days later, he used checks signed with that as…
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 Fictitious Name cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-defendant, John Edward Rapp, was informed 1 against for the crime of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Fla.Stat. § 831.02 (1971), F.S.A., tried and convicted by a jury, adjudged guilty by he court and sentence imposed. He appeals. We reverse.
The evidence adduced at trial revealed that the defendant, John Edward Rapp, opened a checking account in the name of Grover Henry Leverette at a Titusville bank with a deposit of $100. Two days later, the defendant paid for groceries at a Titusville Winn-Dixie store with a check in the amount of $104.11. Later that same day, the defendant purchased additional groceries at another Winn-Dixie store which he also paid for with a check signed under the assumed name of Grover Henry Leverette. No identification or courtesy card was required of the defendant. Both checks were returned to the respective stores marked “insufficient funds.”
On appeal we have for determination whether one who opens a checking account under an assumed name commits the crime of forgery by uttering worthless checks signed with the assumed name with intent to defraud the payee.
The crime of forgery requires the making of a writing, which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud. Walters v. State, 245 So.2d 907 (Fla.App.1971). The offense of forgery may exist even though the name used is an assumed or fictitious name, when it is shown that the assumed or fictitious name was used with intent to defraud. Green v. State, 76 So.2d 645 (Fla.1954); Annot.; 49 A.L.R.2d 852 (1956). However, the signing of a fictitious name is not forgery if it is not intended that such signature shall be taken as the genuine signature of another person. Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512 (4th Cir. 1948); cf. Annot, 49 A.L.R.2d 852 (1956). Thus, where a person assumes a name and obtains goods by signing that name on a check, no forgery is committed so long as the check purports to be the very act of the person issuing it and not the act of another person. Hubsch v. United States, 256 F.2d 820 (5th Cir. 1958); State v. Wilson, 168 La. 932, 123 So. 624 (1929); see Reg. v. Martin, 5 Q. B.D. 34 (1879).
In the case sub judice, while there was sufficient evidence of fraudulent intent, there was no evidence that the defendant intended that the signature of the assumed name be taken as the genuine signature of another person.
Accordingly, the state having failed to prove an essential element of the crime of forgery, the judgment is reversed and the sentence vacated and set aside.
Reversed.
OWEN, J, concurs.
REED, C. J, dissents, with opinion.
(dissenting) :
I would affirm on the authority of Green v. State, 76 So.2d 645 (Fla.1954). See also 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, § 630 at 405.
REED, Chief Judge
(dissenting) :
I would affirm on the authority of Green v. State, 76 So. 2d 645 (Fla.1954). See also 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, § 630 at 405.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Escobedo, 404 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…). There are three essential elements to the crime of forgery under the above statute. First, there must be “ ‘the making of a writing which falsely purports to be the writing of another.’ ” Green v. State, 76 So. 2d at 647; see also Rapp v. State, 274 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. discharged, 281 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1973); Davis v. State, 111 So. 2d 459, 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Central to this element is that the writing in its entirety must falsely purport to be the genuine writing of a third person —…
-
State v. Rapp, 281 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1973)…PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 274 So. 2d 18, based upon conflict between that decision and Green v. State, 76 So. 2d 645 (Fla.1954). We issued the writ and have heard oral argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the writ wa…
-
Isham W. Adams, Jr. v. State, 356 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…71), prohibiting the commission of forgery, nor Section 814.03(1), Florida Statutes (1973), proscribing larceny of a motor vehicle, contained specific provisions requiring an intent to defraud, yet both were construed as so requiring. Rapp v. State, 274 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Austin v. Wainwright, 305 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). I would remand for a new trial.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512 (4th Cir. 1948)
- Hubsch v. United States, 256 F.2d 820 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Green v. State, 76 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1954)
- Eldo Healdraw Walters v. State, 245 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)