{
  "id": 8550261,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD BEAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bean",
  "decision_date": "1978-06-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7817SC111",
  "first_page": "40",
  "last_page": "43",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 N.C. App. 40"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "217 S.E. 2d 743",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 78",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550307
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0078-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 22",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574217
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0651-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 S.E. 2d 172",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554845
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/30/0512-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S.E. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N.C. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657809
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0727-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "148"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.C. 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573134
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "447-448"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/256/0445-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 S.E. 2d 629",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561442
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0313-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 S.Ct. 1106",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 L.Ed. 2d 539",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "429 U.S. 1093",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        8033,
        5826,
        6940,
        6025,
        6776,
        5912,
        5617,
        6004,
        6936,
        5754,
        6268
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/429/1093-09",
        "/us/429/1093-07",
        "/us/429/1093-11",
        "/us/429/1093-05",
        "/us/429/1093-10",
        "/us/429/1093-04",
        "/us/429/1093-02",
        "/us/429/1093-01",
        "/us/429/1093-03",
        "/us/429/1093-06",
        "/us/429/1093-08"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 S.E. 2d 535",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562763
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0556-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 445,
    "char_count": 7310,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.823,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20589269876351865
    },
    "sha256": "25132076118ae603f8196c1c92c7a5eab5a39d13cb08d1c3225c2972687c2709",
    "simhash": "1:2771cf6ae4336deb",
    "word_count": 1266
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:37.287571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BRITT and ARNOLD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD BEAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ERWIN, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit made at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and renewed after the defendant announced that he would offer no evidence. We agree with defendant that the motion should have been allowed.\nUpon motion for judgment of nonsuit, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. State v. Hunter, 290 N.C. 556, 227 S.E. 2d 535 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1093, 51 L.Ed. 2d 539, 97 S.Ct. 1106 (1977); State v. Covington, 290 N.C. 313, 226 S.E. 2d 629 (1976); 4 Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 106, p. 547.\nJustice Moore, speaking for the Supreme Court in State v. Phillips, 256 N.C. 445, 447-448, 124 S.E. 2d 146, 148 (1962), stated:\n\u201cThree elements are necessary to constitute the offense of forgery; (1) There must be a false making or alteration of some instrument in writing; (2) there must be a fraudulent intent; and (3) the instrument must be apparently capable of effecting a fraud. State v. Dixon, 185 N.C. 727, 117 S.E. 170.\nThe State\u2019s evidence is sufficient to justify the inference that defendant aided and abetted Jarrett in the execution of the purported check. The check is sufficient in form to constitute a negotiable instrument payable \u2018to order.\u2019 G.S. 25-14. But the State offered no evidence tending to show the falsity of the instrument, i.e., that it was executed without authority.\nIf the name signed to a negotiable instrument, or other instrument requiring a signature, is fictitious, of necessity, the name must have been affixed by one without authority, and if a person signs a fictitious name to such instrument with the purpose and intent to defraud \u2014 the instrument being sufficient in form to import legal liability \u2014 an indictable forgery is committed. However, if the purported maker is a real person and actually exists, the State is required to show not only that the signature in question is not genuine, but was made by defendant without authority. \u2018To show that the defendant signed the name of some other person to an instrument, and that he passed such instrument as genuine, is not sufficient to establish the commission of a crime. It must still be shown that it was a false instrument, and this is not established until it is shown that a person who signed another\u2019s name did so without authority.\u2019 State v. Dixon, supra.\"\nSee also State v. Martin, 30 N.C. App. 512, 227 S.E. 2d 172 (1976).\nIn the case sub judice, the State offered no evidence to show that Benton Thompson, the purported maker of the check in question, was a fictitious person. There was no evidence from an officer or employee of Northwestern Bank that Benton Thompson was known or unknown at the bank. The signature of Benton Thompson was \u201calready on there\u201d when Joyce Hooker received the check from defendant. None of the State\u2019s witnesses testified that they knew who signed the maker\u2019s name to the check, and the defendant did not offer any evidence. Benton Thompson, if such a person indeed existed, did not testify.\nOfficer Sellars read to the jury a statement made by Joyce Hooker after she had been given her Miranda warning. In part, the statement was as follows:\n\u201cRonald told me that Linda had written Benton Thompson\u2019s name to the front of the check and later that day Linda told me herself that she had forged Benton Thompson\u2019s name on the check.\u201d\nThis, the State contends, was sufficient to show the falsity of the check and to submit the case to the jury. We do not agree. The trial court clearly instructed the jury that \u201c. . . this is for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of Joyce Hooker, if you find that it does corroborate her testimony and for that purpose only.\u201d After defendant objected to and moved to strike the above portion of the statement, the trial court stated: \u201cThe instructions take care of that. Go ahead.\u201d Joyce Hooker\u2019s sworn testimony was that she had not seen anyone sign Thompson\u2019s name on the check and that the signature was on the check when she received it. In light of the judge\u2019s instruction, we feel the quoted portion of her statement was before the jury, if at all, only for corroborative purposes, although it does not appear even to serve that limited function.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed as to both counts. While under our statutes uttering is clearly a distinct offense from forgery, State v. Greenlee, 272 N.C. 651, 159 S.E. 2d 22 (1968), State v. Treadway, 27 N.C. App. 78, 217 S.E. 2d 743 (1975), the uttering must still be of a forged instrument. Therefore, the State\u2019s' failure to meet its burden under Phillips, supra, of showing that the check in question was a false instrument is fatal as to both the forgery charge and the uttering charge.\nReversed on both counts.\nJudges BRITT and ARNOLD concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ERWIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Acie L. Ward, for the State.",
      "Stephen G. Royster, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD BEAN\nNo. 7817SC111\n(Filed 20 June 1978)\nForgery \u00a7 2.2\u2014 showing of false signature \u2014 insufficient evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was insufficient for the jury in a prosecution for forgery and uttering where it failed to show that the purported maker of the check in question was a fictitious person or that the maker\u2019s signature was placed on the check without authority.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Crissman, Judge. Judgment entered 27 October 1977 in Superior Court, SURRY County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 May 1978.\nThe defendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with forgery and uttering a forged check in the amount of $650.00 drawn on one Benton Thompson.\nUpon his plea of not guilty, the jury found defendant guilty on both counts, which were consolidated for the purpose of sentencing.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that: on 10 November 1976, Joyce Hooker, Randy Ryan, and defendant were sitting together in the car of Linda Monday; Joyce Hooker received a blank form check from defendant and filled it out by putting the date on it, the name of the payee (Randy L. Ryan), and the amount; the signature of Benton Thompson was already on it when Joyce Hooker received the blank check; however, she did write the name of Randy L. Ryan on the back of the check as his endorsement. The record reveals:\n\u201cRonald told me (Joyce Hooker) that he got the check when he went to the bank on 601 and he had picked it up earlier that day. He was referring to Northwestern Bank ... in Mount Airy.\u201d\nQ. \u201cAnd in fact you did not see anybody write that name Benton L. Thompson on that check did you?\u201d\nMs. Hooker: \u201cNo, sir.\u201d\nThe three (defendant, Randy Ryan, and Joyce Hooker) all needed money. The proceeds of the check were supposed to be divided among the three. Ryan went to the Northwestern Bank at the Mayberry Mall to get the check cashed, but failed. The three went to the Northwestern Bank on Highway 601 to try to get the check cashed. While standing in the second bank, Ryan was arrested; defendant and Joyce Hooker were waiting in the car.\nDefendant did not choose to offer any evidence.\nFrom judgment sentencing him to a term of two years with the Department of Correction, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Acie L. Ward, for the State.\nStephen G. Royster, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0040-01",
  "first_page_order": 68,
  "last_page_order": 71
}
