Court Opinion

ID: 9714167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:32:22.550614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:23.980842
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring in dismissal of writ). Since the decisive question is of State rather than Federal-nature, we are free to apply, in the construction and application of CL 1929, § 17048, our own cases as *446well as what to us appears the better reasoning of other cases.
Adhering to such view, I conclude with Justice Smith that petitioner was legally charged with forgery and that he in consequence was, within CL 1929, § 17241 as amended, “accused of any felony.” In the language employed by the Court in People v. Marion, 29 Mich 31, 34, I can see no reason for applying to an indictment for forgery any different rule than that which would apply in other cases, so long as the defendant is clearly informed, as here he was, of the precise charge against him.
As for Gilbert v. United States, 370 US 650 (82 S Ct 1399, 8 L ed 2d 750), the case seems to be of doubtful value as precedent. The court divided 4 to 3 (Justices Frankfurter and White not participating) and the minority reached the same general conclusion as I draw from People v. Marion, supra. Justice Black, writing for the dissenters (p 659), said simply that one who indorses a check in the payee’s name without authority to do so is guilty of' forgery under 18 USC, § 495, whether or not the forger falsely purports to have signed the payee’s name as authorized agent. Such reasoning is sound, reasoning. I would apply it here.
The writ is dismissed.