People v. Hellman

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Prantil

    169 Cal.App.3d 592 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    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.(1) 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 into his trust account.

  2. People v. Fork

    233 Cal.App.2d 725 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 14 times

    [7] Although the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant attempted to pass the check in question, in order to constitute the offense of uttering a forgery as that offense is defined in section 470, two other factors must be present: (1) It must be known to the person attempting to pass the check that it is not genuine ( People v. Chapman, 156 Cal.App.2d 151, 156 [ 319 P.2d 8]; People v. Sinshiemer, 182 Cal.App.2d 103, 109 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 740]), and (2) the uttering must be done with the intent to prejudice, damage, or defraud some person. ( People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-779 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 433]; People v. Martin, 208 Cal.App.2d 867, 878-879 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 610].) [8] It is established that the requisite specific intent can be inferred from a finding that the defendant attempted to pass a check which he knew to be false.

  3. People v. Poland

    219 Cal.App.2d 422 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 2 times

    In People v. Luizzi, 187 Cal.App.2d 639, 644 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 842], the court discusses two ways in which such matters may be treated, as follows: "The crime of forgery as denounced by statute (Pen. Code, § 470) consists of either of two distinct acts — the fraudulent making of an instrument, such as a false writing thereof, or the uttering of a spurious instrument by passing the same as genuine with knowledge of its falsity [citation]; and although both acts may be alleged in the conjunctive in the same count in the language of the statute, the offense does not require the commission of both — it is complete when one either falsely makes a document without authority or passes such a document with intent to defraud [citations], and the performance of one or both of these acts with reference to the same instrument constitutes but a single offense of forgery." [10] The elements of forgery by uttering are spelled out in People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-779 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 433], as follows: "`"To constitute forgery by uttering or passing a forged instrument as defined in section 470 of the Penal Code, three important factors are requisite: 1. It must be uttered, published, passed, or attempted to be passed, as true and genuine; 2. It must be known by the person uttering or passing it to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited; 3.

  4. People v. Hulings

    211 Cal.App.2d 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    [4b] The foregoing résumé of the evidence discloses that it is largely circumstantial, yet it amply supports the finding of the trial court that: defendant knew the check described in the amended information was a forged instrument; defendant uttered, published and passed the document as true and genuine, knowing it to be false, altered and forged; he did so with an intent to prejudice, damage or defraud some person. ( People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 779 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 433].) [6] It was held in People v. Williams, 186 Cal.App.2d 420 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 871], at page 424:

  5. People v. Martin

    208 Cal.App.2d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 15 times

    [10] To constitute forgery by uttering or passing a forged instrument, as defined in section 470 of the Penal Code, three important factors are requisite: (1) It must be uttered, published, passed, or attempted to be passed, as true and genuine; (2) It must be known by the person uttering or passing it to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited; (3) It must be with intent to prejudice, damage or defraud some person. ( People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-779 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 433].) [11] The proof of intention to defraud may consist of reasonable inferences drawn from affirmatively established facts.

  6. People v. Lee

    202 Cal.App.2d 36 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 4 times

    It must be with intent to prejudice, damage or defraud some person." ( People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-779 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 433].) [2] There was a discrepancy of $70 between the money order and the carbon copy of the original.

  7. Prantil v. California

    843 F.2d 314 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 255 times
    Explaining that a due process violation arises when an erroneous instruction "infect the entire trial"

    Under California law, a person is guilty of forgery if he passes or attempts to pass as true and genuine a forged instrument with knowledge of the forgery and with the specific intent to defraud. Cal. Penal Code § 470; People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-79, 11 Cal.Rptr. 433 (1961). The only element Prantil challenges as lacking sufficient evidence is the true and genuine requirement.

  8. People v. Maldonado

    F075122 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020)

    A long line of authority establishes a defendant cannot complain of the variance between the date of the crime as alleged and the date indicated by the evidence unless the variance misled him in making his defense or the variance deprived him of the right to a plea of double jeopardy. (People v. Smith (1958) 50 Cal.2d 149, 152; People v. La Marr (1942) 20 Cal.2d 705, 711; People v. Hellman (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 779.) Here, at the time the trial court provided the supplemental jury instruction, the evidence overwhelmingly suggested appellant had committed street terrorism either in connection with Juarez's homicide in February 2012 and/or when he possessed the firearm in May 2012. Appellant does not explain how he faced a danger of being placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense.

  9. People v. Ellsworth

    No. C076034 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 8, 2015)

    But the trial court was entitled to rely on the stipulated basis for the plea agreement and, absent a showing that defendant was misled by the variance in the pleading when she entered her guilty plea, the error does not diminish the effect of defendant's guilty plea to grand theft. (People v. Hellman (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 779 ["A defendant will not be heard to complain of a variance between the date of the crime as alleged and the date indicated by the evidence unless it can be said that such variance misled him [or her] in making his [or her] defense, or was such as would deprive him [or her] of the plea of former jeopardy in the event of another trial for the same offense"]; see also People v. Rice (1887) 73 Cal. 220, 221 [where evidence showed an offense was committed three months before the time stated in the information, the variance was immaterial]; People v. Mack (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 825, 829-830.) The criminal act that constituted the grand theft charged in count three was completed months before defendant fraudulently obtained or used the Discover card—the acts that constitute the elder theft charged in count one.