Graham v. State
331 Ga. App. 36
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Graham was convicted of first-degree forgery after a jury trial.
- She appeals challenging sufficiency of the evidence, hearsay, statute constitutionality, uttering jury instruction, denial of an appeal bond, and speedy-trial rights.
- Graham’s purported guardianship of her father was based on forged documents.
- Siblings and hospital staff discovered the guardianship papers appeared fraudulent and tied Graham to the forged guardianship.
- Evidence showed Graham claimed guardianship and possessed/uttered the forged document, supporting a circumstantial foundation for forgery under prior OCGA § 16-9-1.
- Trial court did not issue Barker v. Wingo findings on speedy-trial issues, so the case was remanded for proper speedy-trial findings and order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree forgery | Graham denies sufficient evidence to prove possession/uttering of forged guardianship | State asserts circumstantial evidence supports forgery | Sufficient evidence to sustain guilty verdict |
| Hearsay admissibility of siblings’ and hospital administrator statements | Testimony about hospital employee’s statement is hearsay | Testimony is non-hearsay to explain investigation | Not hearsay; admissible as non-truth-proving context |
| Constitutionality of the forgery statute | Statute unconstitutionally vague | Constitutionality challenged but waived | Waived; no reviewable issue on appeal |
| Jury instruction on uttering the forgery element | Uttering means speech only; error in using pass/tender | Pass/tender synonymous with utter/publish | Instruction proper; synonyms support uttering" |
| Speedy-trial rights under Barker v. Wingo and Doggett v. United States | Indictment in 2009; speedy-trial demand in 2013; denial implied | Trial court must provide Barker findings; remand for proper order | Remanded for proper Barker findings; guilt affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. State, 325 Ga. App. 267 (Ga. App. 2013) (courts may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove forgery)
- Hudson v. State, 188 Ga. App. 684 (Ga. App. 1988) (circumstantial evidence sufficient for guilt in forgery)
- Jennings v. State, 285 Ga. App. 774 (Ga. App. 2007) (confrontation clause considerations with non-hearsay)
- Smith v. State, 13 Ga. App. 663 (Ga. App. 1913) (uttering may be proven by pass or tender)
- Crowder v. State, 218 Ga. App. 630 (Ga. App. 1995) (forged document uttered and published by actions)
- Warren v. State, 309 Ga. App. 596 (Ga. App. 2011) (interpretation of uttering and publishing)
- Batten v. State, 295 Ga. 442 (Ga. 2014) ( Barker findings requirement for speedy-trial claims)
- Culbreath v. State, 328 Ga. App. 153 (Ga. App. 2014) (remand for Barker analysis when findings missing)
- Perez-Castillo v. State, 275 Ga. 124 (Ga. 2002) (waiver of constitutional challenges by procedural posture)
- Cawley v. State, 324 Ga. App. 358 (Ga. App. 2013) ( Barker framework and deference to trial court discretion)