ELDO HEALDRAW WALTERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Eldo Walters was convicted of forgery after cashing checks under the assumed name Cecil Harrington. The appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a forgery conviction because Walters actually was known in the community as Cecil Harrington, and the store manager accepted the checks from someone he knew by that name, not relying on any deception.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a forgery conviction. Forgery requires the making of a writing that falsely purports to be the writing of another with intent to defraud. Since the defendant was actually known as Cecil Harrington in the community and the store manager accepted the checks from someone he knew as Cecil Harrington, there was no false representation that could support a forgery conviction.
[1] Forgery requires the making of a writing which falsely purports to be the writing of another with an intent to defraud.
[2] The essence of the crime of forgery is the intent to defraud.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The crime of forgery requires "the making of a writing, which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud."”
Establishes the legal definition of forgery that the court applies to evaluate whether the evidence supports conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Eldo Healdraw Walters had assumed the name Cecil Harrington approximately seven years prior for family reasons and was generally known by th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forgery cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal the appellant challenges a final judgment of conviction of forgery.
Appellant was born “Eldo Healdraw Walters.” At trial appellant testified that approximately seven years earlier, because of his “ex-wife” and for “family reasons,” he assumed the name of “Cecil Harrington.” He was generally known by that *908name in the Niceville area where he had spent considerable time during the past two or three years. Appellant had opened a checking account at the Niceville bank and Cecil Harrington was authorized to write checks on the account.
On December 22, 1969, Walters, using the name Cecil Harrington, entered a Niceville Piggly Wiggly grocery store and cashed a $50 check drawn on the Niceville bank. The store manager approved the check because he recognized appellant as a man who worked for a local fish company. Later that same day appellant returned to the Piggly Wiggly store and, again using the name of Cecil Harrington, cashed a second check for $30 drawn on a different bank. The store manager also approved this check. The first check was subsequently returned marked “Insufficient Funds” and the second check was returned because there was no account in the name of the check’s maker at that particular bank. Appellant was convicted of forgery and sentenced to five years.
By his sole point on appeal, appellant contends that the trial judge erred in not granting his motion for directed verdict at the close of the State’s case because the evidence would not sustain a conviction of forgery. We agree and reverse.
The evidence reveals without contradiction that appellant was known in the community where he worked as Cecil Harrington and that no other person in the community was known by this name. The assumed name, under the facts of this case, did not constitute any part of the inducement for the store manager to cash the check. The checks were approved because a man named Cecil Harrington, known by the store manager to be an employee of a local seafood company, wished to purchase some groceries using a personal check.
The crime of forgery requires “the making of a writing, which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud.” Davis v. State, 111 So.2d 459 (Fla.App. 1st 1959). The essence of the offense is the “intent to defraud”. Hawkins v. State, 28 Fla. 363, 9 So. 652 (1891), and Hepburn v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 133, 149 So. 196 (1933). The store manager accepted the checks signed Cecil Harrington from a man he, and the members of the community, knew to be Cecil Harrington. The maker of the check was and is Cecil Harrington insofar as any matters material to the instant transactions are concerned.
Reversed.
CARROLL, DONALD, K., Acting C. J., and VANN, H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watkins v. State, 826 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ntent to injure or defraud any person, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree.... Thus, the crime of forgery requires the making of a writing that falsely purports to be the writing of another, with the intent to defraud. Walters v. State, 245 So. 2d 907, 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); see also Rushing v. State, 684 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In support of his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and on appeal, appellant relies upon two of this Court’s opinions where we reversed the appellants’ for…
-
Rapp v. State, 274 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…ery by uttering worthless checks signed with the assumed name with intent to defraud the payee. The crime of forgery requires the making of a writing, which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud. Walters v. State, 245 So. 2d 907 (Fla.App.1971). The offense of forgery may exist even though the name used is an assumed or fictitious name, when it is shown that the assumed or fictitious name was used with intent to defraud. Green v. State, 76 So. 2d 645 (Fla.1954); Annot.; 49 A…
-
Clayton Council Davis v. State, 364 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…rge. We disagree and affirm his conviction. The crime of forgery requires the making of a writing, which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud. Davis v. State, 111 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Walters v. State, 245 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Endorsement of a check may also be the subject of forgery, and the offense may exist even though the name used is an assumed or fictitious name when it is shown that the assumed or fictitious name was used with intent to defraud…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hepburn v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1933)
- Hawkins v. State, 28 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1891)
- Davis v. State, 111 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)