Court Opinion

ID: 9659983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:00:21.387509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:13.637814
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge.
Though some of the altered receipts introduced over objection were written and issued by other deputy clerks working under appellant’s supervision, it was the theory of the state, supported by the circumstances and the admissions of appellant, that she made the alterations and erasures shown in the receipt books and was the only person involved in the theft of money from the clerk’s office. We remain convinced that these altered receipts were admissible, including those originally written and issued by other deputy clerks.
The testimony offered in appellant’s behalf through her pastor, Dr. Bates, appears to raise the issue that any shortages or “discrepancies” disclosed by the audit were in some way due to the system of accounting used in the clerk’s office and perhaps to the “carelessness” of others, for which she was not responsible.
If, as contended, it was necessary that a defense of lack of fraudulent intent be raised, the testimony of Dr. Bates made the testimony as to altered records other than the receipt dated August 31, 1953, admissible.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.