Flood

People v. Flood

Good Law
1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 380·41 Cal. App. 373·182 P. 766
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 5, 1919Crim. No. 645.California2,038 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

Defendant, jointly with Robert A. Benkert, was, by information containing two counts, charged with the crime of forging two checks, copies of which are set forth in the information. Upon a separate trial given him, he was convicted upon both counts of the information. His motion for a new trial was denied, and from this order and the judgment of imprisonment pronounced he has appealed.

Of the several alleged errors assigned as grounds for reversal, the most important thereof, says counsel for appellant, is want of evidence sufficient to corroborate the testimony of Benkert, who was a self-confessed accomplice of defendant in the commission of the crime. It appears from the testimony of Benkert that in January, 1918, he and defendant, who were engaged in business together, conceived the idea of obtaining money from banks by means of forged checks. With that end in view, they procured a pad of checks upon the Exchange National Bank of Long Beach, and during the week ending with January 12, 1918, prepared the forged checks described in the information, one of which was made to the order of John Norton, signed by B. D. Lindsay and certified by W. J. Gardner, cashier of said Exchange…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.