State v. Bock
Minnesota Supreme Court
39 N.W.2d 887 (1949)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
On November 11, 1947, blank checks were stolen from the General Roofing Company. The prosecution (plaintiff) charged Bock (defendant) with forgery, alleging that on November 12, 1947, he presented one of the stolen checks in the amount of $62.20 to pay for $3.21 in groceries. The check was payable to Harold Camden. At trial, the prosecution presented instances at three other stores in which a man had presented one of the stolen checks filled out in an amount over the amount of the goods being purchased in order to keep the rest of the money. In each case, the man purchased two lamps, first offering to make a down payment of $15, and ended up taking home the lamps and cash in the amount of approximately $31. In each case, the checks were payable to James Wagner, and store employees identified Bock as the customer who bought the lamps. Bock sought to present evidence that checks identical to that presented at the grocery store were presented on November 12, 1947, at two other stores in similar manners. These checks were each payable to Harold Camden, and employees in these stores were prepared to testify that Bock was not the customer who presented the checks. The trial court excluded Bock’s proffered evidence. Bock was convicted, and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Knutson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
