Morales

I concur in the judgment. Appellant was accused of forging a $300 check, drawn against the bank account of I. M. Zimmerman. The check was shown to have been made and uttered. It was made payable “to the order of cash,” and purported to be signed by I. M. Zimmerman. In her testimony Mrs. Zimmerman Stated that she did not write the check, and did not sign it, and that she did not authorize any other person to write the check or to sign her name thereto. The evidence therefore is sufficient to prove the corpus delicti, or, in plain English, that the forgery was committed by someone.

Also there is testimony tending to prove that the signature “R. Morales,” on the back of the check, is in the handwriting of the defendant; and' that this indorsement and the writings on the face of the check, including the name signed at the bottom of the check, were all written by the same person.

As an incidental fact, in the introduction of testimony to show that the defendant had admitted that he forged “People’s Exhibit One,” the check particularly in question in this action, it appeared that this check and others were present before the parties to those conversations, that is, the witnesses and…

Defendant appeals from an order denying a motion for a new trial and from a judgment of conviction of forgery of a bank check.

Appellant contends that he was convicted on incompetent and immaterial evidence admitted by the court over his objection. It is contended that the evidence complained of led the jury to believe that defendant had committed other similar crimes and that this evidence was admitted in violation of the well-established rule of evidence that the prosecution cannot prove the commission by the defendant of other offenses committed by him, for the purpose of increasing the likelihood that he has committed the particular crime with which he is charged. There is no doubt about the law in such cases, but in the application of the law to the instant case, we find that the evidence complained of is not of the class considered by appellant. It is true that in bringing out evidence material to the issue, circumstances tending to cast suspicion on defendant in the commission of other crimes appeared incidentally, some of which were elicited by the defendant on cross-examination of witnesses produced by the prosecution. The evidence complained of came out in statements…