Cannady v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00647-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00647-COA ; 2002-CT-00647-SCT ; 2002-CT-00647-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-11-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Uttering a forgery - Sufficiency of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-15-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: APPELLANT CONVICTED OF FORGERY, SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS, WITH THREE YEARS' POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AND RESTITUTION. Case Number: 00-0-613 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cornelius Cannady |
THOMAS M. FORTNER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Uttering a forgery - Sufficiency of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cornelius Cannady was convicted of uttering a forgery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Cannady argues that the State's evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction, because the State failed to demonstrate his guilty knowledge of the uttered forgery. Either unexplained or unsatisfactorily explained possession of a forged instrument by the defendant is prima facie evidence that he either committed the forgery himself, or procured another to do so. There was no dispute that the check presented at First American for deposit was in Cannady's possession prior to being presented. Cannady offered no meaningful support for his explanation of events and did not counter the State's prima facie case. Issue 2: Jury instructions Cannady argues that the court erred by refusing to grant two jury instructions. Cannady argues the first instruction was necessary to present his theory of the case to the jury. Because jurors were told in other instructions that Cannady must have known the check was forged and that all elements must have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the court did not err in refusing the instruction. The second instruction was a circumstantial evidence instruction. Such an instruction is necessary when the State has been unable to produce an eyewitness or a confession to the gravamen of the offense. Here, there was direct evidence, including the forged nature of the check and Cannady's possession. Evidence of intent and knowledge arose solely from inferences requiring no circumstantial instruction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
