People v. Hellman

5 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. 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.

  3. 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:

  4. 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.

  5. 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.