State of Nm V. Joshua Herrera

In: Business and Management

Submitted By lolo67155
Words 324
Pages 2
In the court case “State of NM v. Joshua Herrera,” I believe the court sided with Herrera and reversed the previous court decision made. Some of the key facts in the case are: the check was originally written to cash, Herrera added his name in the payee line and he endorsed the check. Herrera’s argument was that he did not change the legal efficacy of the check by adding his name to it. The charge against Herrera was forgery.
According to the textbook, forgery is defined as falsely making or altering any signature or any writing purporting to have any legal efficacy with the intent to injure or defraud. The portion that applies to this case is that it is also considered forgery when changing a genuine document so that its effect was different from the original.
When the check was made payable to cash it makes it a bearer instrument. This makes it payable to anyone possessing the instrument and it is negotiable by transfer alone; the only requirement is delivery. However, when a check is made out to a particular person, it is an order instrument which allows only the intended party to be able to cash it.
A key deciding factor in this case depends on whether Herrera changed the efficacy of the instrument through the addition of his name. The textbook states that an instrument cannot be both bearer and order. It is decided that if both are stated it is payable to the bearer aside from certain circumstances. A special endorsement is one of these circumstances; yet, the check did not include the specific language needed to make the check payable to a specific person.
Therefore, it is seen that since by adding his name, Herrera did not change the legal efficacy of the check which would make it fraudulent. For this reason, I believe the court would overrule and reverse the previous verdict against Herrera committing…...

Similar Documents

California State Constitution V. U.S. Constitution

...California State Constitution v. U.S. Constitution HIS/301 William Liesman September 4, 2012 California State Constitution v. U.S. Constitution Monterey, California; the year was 1849 a group of Californians gathered at their first Constitutional convention to talk and construct a government to maintain law and order. In October 1849 a California State Constitution was adopted, outlining founding principles as a territory. Once California became a State in 1850 the newly adopted Constitution remained in place up to present day. ("Teachergenius", 2012). The California Constitution is similar in many ways to the United States Constitution. Example of this is; Article III California Constitution divided State Government into three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, the same as the U.S. Constitution. ("Teachergenius", 2012). There also are many differences between the two Constitutions. First; the California Constitution allows the Governor to line veto bills that have been submitted for approval, this means that the governor can accept some parts of the bill and delete other parts, and the President of the United States can only veto the entire bill. ("National Constitution Center", 2012). Second difference is; the Lieutenant Governor, which is equivalent to the U.S. Vice President, is elected by the voters separately from the State Governor, according to Article V (Executive Department). In the U.S.......

Words: 565 - Pages: 3

State V. Bauman

...STATE v. BAUMAN 425 So.2d 32 (1982) STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. H. Lee BAUMAN, Appellee. No. 81-222. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. December 8, 1982. Petition for Rehearing Granted February 2, 1983. Petition for Rehearing Denied February 2, 1983. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Marc Cooper and Sharon L. Wolfe of Greene & Cooper, P.A., Miami, for appellee.     Appellant's Petition for Rehearing Granted February 2, 1983. Appellee's Petition for Rehearing Denied February 2, 1983. GLICKSTEIN, Judge. The State appeals from an order granting appellee's sworn motion to dismiss and an unsworn motion to dismiss based upon alleged prosecutorial misconduct.1 We find the order erroneous; therefore, we reverse and remand. The amended information alleged that beginning on or about December 26, 1979, and continuing thereafter through on or about January 17, 1980, appellee and five others conspired to traffic in cocaine and cannabis. The sworn motion to dismiss conceded that the depositions of two of the undercover officers and one of the coconspirators reflect that appellee, a lawyer, discussed arrangements for the sale of sixty kilograms of cocaine to the officers for $3,000,000 and 20,000 pounds of marijuana for $500,000 in several meetings over a period of weeks. However, the sworn motion contends dismissal was compelled because of two reasons. First, it......

Words: 1960 - Pages: 8

United States V. Curlin

...Title UNITED STATES V. CURLIN Citation U.S. App. LEXIS 8426 (7th Cir. 2011 Unpub.) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, V. Marcus CURLIN, Appellant No. 10-3033 History Marcus CURLIN was ordered by the Small Claims Court judge to vacate the property due to failure to pay rent. At the time of the eviction the deputies observed firearms in the house and Curlin was charged with possession of firearms due to earlier felony convictions which bar him from owning firearms. The defendant attempted to suppress the evidence on the plain-view doctrine and the violation of privacy, under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, as the deputies entered his premises without a search warrant. The Seventh Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the trial court by denying the motion to suppress. Facts On October 17th, 2008, Curlin’s landlord filed a small claim action against Curlin, seeking possession of Curlin’s leased residence for failure to pay rent. The Notice of the Claim for possession of Real Estate and Summons were served on Curlin by mail and by delivery to his residence, however Curlin failed to appear before the Court as ordered. Due to Curlin’s failure to appear, he was the served with a second notice to appear before Court on the next date but he again failed to appear. Small claim court entered a judgment in favor of landlord. The clerk of the court based on the order issued an eviction order, ordering Curlin to vacate the property on or before 6:00 p.m. on Nov...

Words: 682 - Pages: 3

State V. Ayala

...Ayala v. Maryland (Cite as: 174Md.App.647 (2007) ) Fact: Appellant Ayala was convicted in a jury trial in the Circuit Court, Prince George County C. Phillip Nichols Jr. J of a first degree murder and sentence to life in prison. Appellant do not denied that he was involved in the murder; however, he did it as a self-defense not because it was a gang affiliation. Issue: Was the admissibility of gang evidence in the trial accurate? Holding: The Court of Special Appeals, Davis J. affirm the decision made by the Maryland State Court to found admissible the evidence of the appellant’s gang affiliation. Conclusion: The Court of special appeals affirm the decision made by the the Maryland State Court because it can be little doubt that evidence that a defendant is a member of an organization known for violent acts may be evidence of bad character or prior bad acts.   See generally Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 547-49, 735 A.2d 1061 (1999) (where the Court of Appeals discussed what constitutes a bad act and commented in dicta that in some cases decided by courts of other jurisdictions “membership in a gang was considered a bad act”).   Under Md. Rule 5-404(b): The Court of special appeals has explained that One of the purposes for which other crimes evidence may be admitted under Rule 5-404(b) is to prove motive.   Motive is the catalyst that provides the reason for a person to engage in criminal activity․ “Like intent, motive is a mental state, the proof......

Words: 437 - Pages: 2

Korematsu V United States

...Christian Marble SECTION #:22230408 Date:11/12/13 Korematsu v. United States U.S. Supreme Court 1944 Facts: In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066. This order allowed the United States military to section off parts of the US as military areas. In these areas they were trying to exclude specific groups of people from them. The group they were trying to exclude were the Japanese-Americans because they were believed to be acting as spies and sending signals to enemy submarines. The order requested that many Japanese-Americans leave their homes and business. However, many were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Frank Korematsu, a US-born man of Japanese descent, knowingly resisted the order to be relocated. Korematsu was later arrested and convicted for remaining in a “Military Area.” His case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that exclusion orders based on Executive Order 9066 were in fact constitutional. Therefore, his conviction was upheld. Issue: Does Congress and the Executive possess the power to exclude persons of racial minority groups from a areas in the United States? Rule: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Korematsu for violating the exclusion order forcing all persons of Japanese ancestry from designated military areas. The strict scrutiny test was applied here and the court found that the government's actions were valid. Application of......

Words: 392 - Pages: 2

Korematsu V. United States

...Christian Marble SECTION #:22230408 Date:11/12/13 Korematsu v. United States U.S. Supreme Court 1944 Facts: In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066. This order allowed the United States military to section off parts of the US as military areas. In these areas they were trying to exclude specific groups of people from them. The group they were trying to exclude were the Japanese-Americans because they were believed to be acting as spies and sending signals to enemy submarines. The order requested that many Japanese-Americans leave their homes and business. However, many were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Frank Korematsu, a US-born man of Japanese descent, knowingly resisted the order to be relocated. Korematsu was later arrested and convicted for remaining in a “Military Area.” His case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that exclusion orders based on Executive Order 9066 were in fact constitutional. Therefore, his conviction was upheld. Issue: Does Congress and the Executive possess the power to exclude persons of racial minority groups from a areas in the United States? Rule: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Korematsu for violating the exclusion order forcing all persons of Japanese ancestry from designated military areas. The strict scrutiny test was applied here and the court found that the government's actions were valid. Application of......

Words: 392 - Pages: 2

Aghnoo Nagesia V. State of Bihar

...Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar Section 25 of the Evidence Act is a provision of law dealing with confessions made by an accused. The law relating to confessions is to be found generally in ss. 24-30 of the Evidence Act and ss 162 and 164 of Cr PC. Sections 17-31 of the Evidence Act are to be found under heading ‘Admissions'. A confession is a species of admissions dealt with in ss. 24-30. A confession or an admission is evidence against the maker of it, unless its admissibility is excluded by some provision of law. Section 24 excludes confessions caused by certain inducements, threats and promises..Section 25 provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence. The terms of Section 25 are imperative. A confession made to a police officer under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against he accused. It covers a confession made when he was free and not in police custody, as also a confession made before an investigation had begun. The expression accused of any offence covers a person accused in an offence at the trial whether or not he was accused of the offence when he made the conclusion. Section 26 prohibits proof against any person of a confession made by him in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate. The partial ban imposed by s 26 relates to a confession made to a person other than a police officer. Section 26 does not qualify the absolute ban......

Words: 2250 - Pages: 9

United States of America V. Angevine

...Case: United States of America v. Angevine `````````````````````````````````````````````` Question 1: How did the police find this illegal material? Professor Angevine’s wife tipped the authorities of her husband’s activities. Officers from the Stillwater, Oklahoma Police Department seized the computer and turned it over to a computer expert who used special technology to retrieve the data that had remained latent in the computer's memory despite Professor Angevine attempt to erase the pornographic files. Question 2: Did the police obtain a search warrant before conducting this search? Yes, with the cooperation of Professor Angevine's wife, officers from the Stillwater, Oklahoma Police Department obtained a search warrant to look for child pornography on his University computer. Question 3: Then why wasn’t this search illegal under the 4th Amendment? Why didn’t the court hold this evidence to be inadmissible under the exclusionary rule? The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. To establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment, however, a defendant must prove that he has "a legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place searched. This, in turn, requires defendant to show both that he has "a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched" and that "that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize." In analyzing......

Words: 902 - Pages: 4

Hawkins V. the State. Court of Appeals of Georgia.

...Report on E evidence admissibility issues in the case of HAWKINS v. THE STATE. Court of Appeals of Georgia. MEMORANDUM Subject: E evidence admissibility issues Using an online data base or an internet search engine, search for a situation in which an electronic device or recorder implicated someone of a crime or wrong doing. Write a report on the E evidence admissibility issues in the case. In your report, describe how that evidence was discovered and retrieved by law officers or computer forensic experts MEMORANDUM Subject: E evidence admissibility issues Here is the report you requested on E evidence admissibility issues on a case that involved the use of electronic device or recorder which implicated someone of a crime or wrong doing. I am confident that the knowledge gleaned from this report will be invaluable. Table of contents | Memo of authorization | 1 | Memo of transmittal | 2 | Executive summary | 4 | 1 Introduction | 4 | 1.1 Purpose | 4 | 1.2 Scope | 4 | 1.3 Method | 4 | 1.4 Limitations | 5 | 1.5 Assumptions | 5 | 1.6 Background | 5 | 2 Findings | 7 | 3 Discussion | 7 | 4 Conclusion | 10 | References | 11 | Executive summary This report looks at the admissibility issues pertaining to a case that involved the use of an electronic device by the state to implicate and subsequently convict a perpetrator of a crime. The defendant on conviction sought a judicial review of the lower court’s ruling.......

Words: 2133 - Pages: 9

United States V Lopez

...Nick Kaplan Mr. Gowaskie Const. History of the US April 22, 2010 United States v. Lopez United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause? Alfonso Lopez Jr. was a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992, he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver and five cartridges into the school. When confronted by school authorities, Lopez admitted he had the weapon. He was then arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school property. This was dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with being in violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This act forbids, “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone.” Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release. However, Lopez did not believe that this act was constitutional. He moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was, “unconstitutional because it was......

Words: 1812 - Pages: 8

State V Serebin

...Case Citation: State v. Serebin, 119 Wis.2d 837, 350 N.W.2d 65 (1985) Procedural History: The case was tried in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. It was appealed in the Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed and the State petitioned for review, which was granted. It was heard in the U.S. Supreme court where they affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Issue: 1) Was the evidence sufficient to support a conviction of homicide by arising from a residents’ death while acting as an administrator? 2) And was the evidence sufficient to support conviction of twelve counts of abuse of nursing home residents? Answer: 1) Yes 2) No Holding: 1) The evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction of homicide by arising from a residents’ death while acting as an administrator 2) The evidence was sufficient to support conviction of twelve counts of abuse of nursing home residents. Brief Statement of Facts: Defendant Stephen Serebin and owners of “Glendale” were charged with one count of homicide by reckless conduct and fifty-eight counts of abuse of inmates, for incidents that occurred December 20, 1975- June 30, 1976. Serebin was the administrator at Glendale nursing home from 1973 to 1977. The homicide charge was from an incident on February 7, 1976. A resident of Glendale, Bruno Dreyer, wandered out of the nursing home unseen and died from exposure to the cold. The charges of abuse stemmed from various residents......

Words: 911 - Pages: 4

State of Missouri V. Tyler G. Mcneely

...Name: cherry boom Case Name | STATE of Missouri V. Tyler G. McNEELY | Citation(year) | 358 S.W.3d 65 January 17, 2012 | Ct/J. | John G. Roberts Chief Justice | Pro. History | A trial judge ruled in McNeely's favor to suppress the results of the blood test, stating that administering a blood test without a warrant was a violation of the suspect's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. State prosecutors later argued that the administration of the test without a warrant was justified as blood alcohol would be metabolized with time, and a delay in obtaining a warrant would amount to destruction of evidence, citing the exigent circumstances exception in the United States Supreme Court decision Schmerber v. California. On appeal, the state appeals court stated an intention to reverse, but transferred the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision that the officer had violated McNeely's Fourth Amendment rights. | Short Facts | On October 3, 2010, at approximately 2:08 A.M., patrolman Mark Winder stopped Tyler G. McNeely for speeding. During the routine traffic stop, Winder thought McNeely showed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol on his person. As a result, Winder had McNeely perform multiple field-sobriety tests. According to Winder’s later testimony, because McNeely performed poorly on each of these tests, Winder...

Words: 1448 - Pages: 6

Rodriguez V. United States

...Rodriguez v. United States For a long time, Americans have been victims not only of torture but also unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police officers. However, the status has changed after passing of a related legislation which has effected an alteration in the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has apparently changed the right of the American citizens’ protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to the document, individuals have a right to be or feel secured in houses against unreasonable captures and searches. The amendment limits the power of police to search people and seize their homes and property. The applications of the Fourth Amendment in reality, particularly in courts today, have even surprised those who drafted it. The judgment from the case Rodriguez v. the United States is primarily based on the provisions of the document to the Constitution. In this case, a k-9 officer, Morgan Struble, stopped Rodriguez on grounds of driving on the shoulder of a highway, which is a violation of the Nebraska law. The policeman then attended to everything connected with the stopping, including issuing a warning for dangerous driving checking the driving license of Rodriguez. The officer asked the permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez’s car, which was denied. He then ordered the offender to step out of his vehicle while waiting for backup to come. Once the other policemen had arrived at the...

Words: 687 - Pages: 3

United States V. Greber and United States V. Mcclatchey Case Questions

...Discuss the United States v. Greber and United States v. McClatchey case questions 1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes? Yes. I think Dr. Gerber is still responsible. Although the payments made had legitimate purposes, they could still be viewed as intent to induce referrals. And as long as one purpose among all was intended to induce referrals then a statute becomes violated. Secondly, the law views remuneration as anything that has monetary value. Therefore, I would agree the court would view that payment as a prohibited remuneration. 2. Suppose you were a lawyer or a compliance officer advising a hospital cardiology department. The department has a contract under the terms of which it will pay a certain cardiology group a fixed dollar amount for every electrocardiogram (ECG) interprets, and the hospital will bill Medicare accordingly. The dollar amount is equal to Medicare’s allowable charge for ECG’s (less $10 at this writing), and all readings are medically necessary. You ask why the hospital does not just let the doctors bill Medicare themselves, and the reply is, “ Oh, it’s such a hassle for them. We already have a billing department, and we can do it for them easily.” What is your response, and why? I would respond in......

Words: 647 - Pages: 3

United States V. Arizona

...United States v. Arizona: The Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act is Preempted and Discriminatory Melissa Goolsarran Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Perspective: Immigration, Discrimination, and Limitations on State Laws 3 III. Background: United States v. Arizona 9 A. S.B. 1070 and the Legislature’s Justification 10 B. The Decision: United States v. Arizona 18 IV. Analysis: S.B. 1070 is Preempted by Federal Immigration Law and Also Discriminatory 23 A. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Correctly found that S.B. 1070 is Preempted Because it Interferes with the Administration and Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws 24 B. S.B. 1070 Discriminates on the Basis of Race or National Origin 32 V. Comment and Conclusion: Effects of the Arizona Law 36 I. Introduction The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (“S.B. 1070”) has been the subject of many debates for both its potential impact on federal immigration laws and discrimination against citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin. The Arizona State Legislature passed S.B. 1070 to reduce the continuous rise in the number of illegal immigrants and alleged consequent rise in crime rates in the state. Among other provisions, the law requires officers to check a person's immigration status, criminalizes an alien’s failure to comply with federal registration laws and working without authorization, and authorizes warrantless arrests where there is probable cause...

Words: 14328 - Pages: 58