State v. Nichols

The state of Wisconsin concedes the fact to be that there was but one instrument involved. Therefore, this case presents but one question: Did the legislature, when it created sec. 943.38 (1) (a) and (2), Stats. 1955, new Criminal Code, intend that forgery and uttering of an instrument by one as part of the same transaction constitute one crime or two separate distinct crimes?

In Hansen v. Industrial Comm. (1943), 242 Wis. 293, 297, 7 N. W. (2d) 881, this court said:

“The problem here is to determine the reasonable intendment of the act.”

See also State ex rel. Husting v. Board of State…