Court Opinion

ID: 9738324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:49:50.122558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:05.379898
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
In Jackson v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 579, 228 N. E. 2d 3, cited by appellant here, this Court said:
“Uttering is the offering of a forged instrument, knowing it to be such, with a representation that it is genuine, and with an intent to defraud.” 248 Ind. at 583.
There was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, presented in this trial from which the trier of fact could conclude that appellant knew this check was forged or that he passed it with the intent to defraud. And the majority in its opinion suggest none. This conviction should be reversed for insufficiency of evidence.
Note.—Reported in 291 N. E. 2d 554.