{ "id": 8661928, "name": "STATE v. PETERSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Peterson", "decision_date": "1901-12-03", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "556", "last_page": "558", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "129 N.C. 556" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "116 N. C., 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 N. C., 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8695741 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/80/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 N. C., 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8687089 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/14/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 N. C., 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275899 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/19/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Am. St. Rep., 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Am. St. Rep.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 L. R. A., 454", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Wis., 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 11285368 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/30/0416-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 S. W., 475", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Mass., 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2005726 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/3/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 W. Va., 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W. Va.", "case_ids": [ 8639024 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/w-va/42/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 Ind., 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1382575 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind/124/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Wend., 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2149094 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wend/16/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 N. J., 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.", "case_ids": [ 1913160 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj/53/0601-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 284, "char_count": 4071, "ocr_confidence": 0.446, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.514978615739098e-07, "percentile": 0.9464368385956092 }, "sha256": "da2df6643ee08488754c11116e4feb0719822b951242a2bef4f647f249860cd0", "simhash": "1:73c279edc1f286c5", "word_count": 715 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:26.986874+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. PETERSON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, J.\nIn an indictment for forgery, it is not necessary to allege loss of tbe instrument in tbe indictment, and in tbe absence of tbe instrument, only its substance need be charged. 2 McClain Criminal Law, sec. 805; Mead v. State, 53 N. J., 601; People v. Badgely, 16 Wend., 53; State v. Callahan, 124 Ind., 364, tbongb it would be better practice in sucb cases to aver tbe loss of tbe instrument, or that it is in defendant\u2019s possession. Tbe instrument being shown to be lost, tbe witness stated be could not give tbe entire contents of tbe note verbatim, but could give its substance. This was competent. State v. Lowry, 42 W. Va., 205; Com. v. Snell, 3 Mass., 82; 13 Am. and Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.), 111.\nTbe Court properly refused to charge that there was no evidence to go to tbe jury. Even if there bad been no other evidence, tbe defendant being in possession of tbe forged instrument attempting to utter, pass or deliver it, was evidence, and tbe Court charged, at request of defendant, that tbe jury should not convict unless they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that tbe defendant did so attempt for personal gain or a fraudulent purpose.\nTbe evidence did not authorize tbe Court to give tbe instruction asted as to drunkenness. Voluntary drunkenness is never an excuse for crime.. State v. Kale, 124 N. C., and eases cited at page 819; Howard v. State, 36 S. W., 475.\nTbe absence of a revenue stamp has no bearing upon tbe inquiry whether the defendant forged tbe paper-writing, though not decorated with sucb stamp. 1 Randolph Com. Paper, sec. 213; State v. Hill, 30 Wis., 416; Thomas v. State, (Tex. Cr. App.), 46 L. R. A., 454, 76 Am. St. Rep., 240. And sucb is tbe law in England also. Hawkeswood\u2019s case, 2 East P. C., 955.\nThe defendant excepted to tbe charge because of tbe following instructions: \u201c(1) Where one is found in tbe possession of a forged instrument and is endeavoring to obtain money or advances upon it, this raises a presumption that defendant either forged or consented to the forging such instrument, and nothing else appearing the person would be presumed to be guilty.\u201d In this there was no error. State v. Morgan, 19 N. C., 348; State v. Britt, 14 N. C., 122; State v. Lane, 80 N. C., 407; State v. Allen, 116 N. C., 548. \u201c(2) If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the paper (in this case the note) was a forgery, and that the defendant had it in his possession and tried to obtain money from Crowell or Shuford or the bank upon it, then this raises \u2022a presumption of guilt, and, unless he has rebutted it, you will return a verdict of guilty.\u201d This is also warranted by the precedents. 2 McClain Or. Law, sec. 809, and cases \u2022there cited.\nNo Error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Brown Shepherd, for B. D. Cilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.", "Self & Whitener, and L. L. Witherspoon, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. PETERSON.\n(Filed December 3, 1901.)\n1. FORGERY \u2014 Indictment\u2014Lost Instruments \u2014 Practice.\nAn indictment for forgery need not allege the loss of the forged instrument, and in the absence of the instrument only its substance need he charged.\n2. EVIDENCE \u2014 Forgery\u2014Lost Instruments.\nWhere it is shown that a forged instrument is lost, it is competent for a witness to give its substance from memory.\n3. EVIDENCE \u2014 Sufficiency\u2014Forgery.\nIt appearing that a defendant was in possession of a forged note, attempting to pass it, this was sufficient evidence to submit' to the jury.\n4. DRUNKARDS \u2014 Voluntary\u2014Intoxication\u2014Insanity.\nVoluntary drunkenness is never an excuse for crime.\n5. EVIDENCE \u2014 Revenue Stamp\u25a0 \u2014 Forgery.\nThe absence of a revenue stamp upon a forged note has no hearing upon the question of forgery of the instrument.\n6. PRESUMPTIONS \u2014 Forgery.\nWhere one is found in possession of a forged instrument, endeavoring to pass it, he is presumed either to have forged or consented to the forging of it.\nINDICTMENT for forgery against L. R. Peterson, heard by Judge W. B. Council and a jury, at July Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Catawba County. From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.\nBrown Shepherd, for B. D. Cilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nSelf & Whitener, and L. L. Witherspoon, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0556-01", "first_page_order": 590, "last_page_order": 592 }