Criminal – Uttering – Forged check

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was convicted of uttering after she cashed a forged check drawn on the account of a person who did not know her, the conviction must be reversed because the commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the check had been forged.

“… On January 19, 2019, the defendant walked into a bank, presented her driver’s license, and cashed a personal check made out to her in the amount of $3,600. The funds were drawn from an account belonging to an individual whose first name is Eileen (account holder). On the face of the check was the purported signature of the account holder with a misspelled first name. The following month, the account holder was notified by her bank that her account had been depleted. She subsequently contacted police after discovering that several checks had been drawn on her account without her knowledge or authorization. …

“The Commonwealth contends that the following evidence presented at trial provided sufficient proof of the defendant’s knowledge: (1) the account holder did not know the defendant and had no reason to pay her; (2) the check that the defendant cashed had been stolen ‘recently’; (3) the account holder’s signature on the check was misspelled; and (4) the check was cashed for a ‘rather large’ amount of money. We conclude that, considered collectively, the evidence is insufficient to allow any rational trier of fact to have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the check was forged. …

“Each of the above factors might support the knowledge element to varying degrees. However, ‘it is not enough for the appellate court to find that there was some record evidence, however slight, to support each essential element of the offense.’ …

“The account holder’s unfamiliarity with the defendant coupled with the defendant’s mere possession of a stolen check together demonstrate little, if anything, regarding the defendant’s knowledge of the forgery. … The significance of the slight misspelling of the account holder’s signature in the circumstances described supra is negligible. … The fact that the defendant cashed rather than deposited a check for $3,600, although perhaps unusual, together with the above-referenced evidence does not permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the check was forged. …

“Moreover, other than the fact that the defendant cashed a check for a large sum, the Commonwealth presented no evidence of unusual circumstances surrounding the bank transaction. … To the contrary, based on the evidence presented at trial, the defendant did not appear nervous or otherwise act suspiciously either before or after she cashed the check. … The check was made out in the defendant’s name, and she presented her own valid identification. … Nor did the defendant provide conflicting or incriminating statements about the check. …

“Because the Commonwealth failed to introduce sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the check she presented was forged, the judgment of the District Court is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and judgment shall enter for the defendant.”

Commonwealth v. Oliver (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-107-24) (13 pages) (Budd, C.J.) The case was tried before William G. Farrell, J., in District Court. Joshua M. Daniels on appeal for the defendant; Daniel DeBlander for the commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-13486) (Sept. 24, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.