Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D opened a checking account using a false name. D then took four checks belonging to four different parties and cashed them into his false account. Each check bore the apparent endorsement of the payee and a second endorsement by D. At trial, the four payees testified that they have never received, endorsed, or authorized endorsement of the checks. Handwriting expert testimony revealed that D had signed the names on all the checks. The trial court instructed the jury that possession of recently stolen property if not satisfactorily explained is ordinarily a circumstance from which you may reasonably draw the inference that the person knew they have been stolen. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.