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.

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