MacBeth

People v. MacBeth

Good Law
104 Cal. App. 690·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 1076·286 P. 448
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 26, 1930Docket No. 1571.California898 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

In the information the district attorney pleaded five separate counts alleging five different acts of forgery. He also alleged two prior convictions. On his arraignment the defendant pleaded not guilty to each of the five counts alleging forgery, but admitted the prior convictions. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5. The defendant moved for a new trial. The motion was denied and from the judgment of conviction and the order denying him a new trial the defendant has appealed.

It was the theory of the prosecution that the defendant wrote the instruments pleaded in the information and signed the names, but the names so signed were names of fictitious persons, natural or artificial. The defendant contends that the evidence was wholly insufficient to show that any of the persons, natural or artificial, were fictitious. The district attorney called Martha B. May. She testified that the instrument set forth in the first count was cashed by her at the request of the defendant and that the instrument set forth in the second count was likewise cashed by her. He called Henrietta Rudawsky, who testified that the instrument set forth in the third count was at the…

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.