Lockard v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 38 — INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. An indictment for uttering a forged instrument is bad for failure to allege the place of uttering. (Stowes v. Commonwealth, 12 Bush, 342; Commonwealth v. Williams, 13 Bush, 267.) 2. When the accused testifies in his own behalf the Commonwealth should not be allowed to prove his general bad character. (McDonald v. Commonwealth, Ky. Law Rep., vol. 9, p. 230.) No brief in record.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HOLT
delivered the opinion of the court.
An indictment for uttering a forged writing must state the acts constituting the uttering, and not the forging of it. It is immaterial who committed the forgery, or how it was done. The falsity of the paper is merely a fact necessary to the existence of the offense. If it be forged, and one so knowing utters it as genuine, he is guilty. The acts constituting the uttering are the gravamen of the offense.
*202In this case the indictment charges, in substance, that the appellant had the writing; knew it to be false; presented it to the party defrauded,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Connors v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Fletcher v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Brandon v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- People v. McGungillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Commonwealth v. BonnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Powers v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1906
- State v. BecknerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Shell v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Smith v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Bowman v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.