Davis v. StateDavis v. State
Appellant contends on this appeal that the lower court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on a forgery charge. We disagree and affirm his conviction.
The crime of forgery requires the making of a writing, which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud. Davis v. State, 111 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Walters v. State, 245 So.2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Endorsement of a check may also be the subject of forgery, and the offense may exist even though the name used is an assumed or fictitious name when it is shown that the assumed or fictitious name was used with intent to defraud. Green v. State, 76 So.2d 645 (Fla. 1954).
The check allegedly forged by appellant here was drawn on a Georgia bank and
On this record, we believe the State presented sufficient evidence to go to the jury on whether appellant signed the name Clayton Davis as an endorsement to a check drawn on another person‘s account with the intent to defraud that person.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C.J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.