Legal Opinion
People v. Prantil
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 24, 1985No. Crim. 15698PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WIENER, Acting P. J.
Frank G. Prantil appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of forgery by uttering or making use of a forged check under Penal Code section 470. Uttering requires a person pass or offer to pass a forged instrument with knowledge of the forgery and with the specific intent to defraud. (People v. Hellman (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-779 [11 Cal.Rptr. 433].) The jury decided Prantil had the requisite criminal knowledge and intent when on September 4, 1981, he indorsed and deposited a stolen $53,500 check bearing the forged indorsement of Joanna F. McKnight…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- People v. FlannelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Connecticut v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Frank George Prantil v. State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Roberts v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1985
- People v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- In Re PrantilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- People v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.