Maryland case law › McDuffy v. State

McDuffy v. State

6 Md. App. 537 (1969) · Maryland Court of Special Appeals
Maryland Court of Special AppealsDisposition: Rev'd in partThompson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingJohn Andrew McDuffy was convicted in a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on three separate forgery charges and sentenced to concurrent two-year terms.

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. John Andrew McDuffy, the appellant, was convicted on three separate charges of forgery by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County in a trial before the court. He was sentenced to serve a term of two years, concurrently, on each of the three convictions. The facts and contentions concerning each case will be set out separately.

Case No. 1Q252 The indictment charged that McDuffy forged an “American Oil Credit Card.” Testimony showed that the card was not in any way forged or altered by anyone, but that a receipt for certain merchandise was forged by McDuffy, who contends that he cannot be convicted of forging a receipt under an indictment which charges him with forging a credit card. We do not 539 think it requires a citation of authority to support the proposition that an individual cannot be convicted of forging one instrument when the proof shows that he forged an entirely different instrument. We must, therefore, reverse this conviction. Case No. 10270 In this case McDuffy was also indicted for forgery.

The docket entries show that prior to trial the indictment was stetted with permission of the court. It appears that the court inadvertently found a verdict of guilty thereafter. The state concedes that the conviction should be reversed since there was no order reinstating the case. We agree.

See Brown v. State, 2 Md. App. 388, 397-8, 234 A. 2d 788 . Case No. 10271 McDuffy was indicted and convicted of forging a Mobile Oil Company Credit Receipt. It is contended on appeal that a receipt cannot be the subject of a forgery. Md. Code, Art. 27 § 44 specifically includes as a proper subject for forgery a “receipt either for money or for propert5.” Such receipts have been the subject of forgery in other jurisdictions in the United States, see 90 ALR 2d 822 .

McDuffy further contends, however, that by the language of Md. Code Art. 27 § 142—False Pretenses—the legislature intended to limit prosecutions for the misuse of credit cards, at least where the amount involved was less than $100. He relies upon People v. Swann, 213 Cal. App. 2d

This is a preview of McDuffy v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.