Criminal – Uttering – Forged check

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was found guilty of uttering after cashing a single check from a person who did not know her, the conviction must be reversed because the commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.

“After cashing a single check from a person who did not know her, the defendant, Rachelle Scordino, proceeded to a jury waived trial on one count of larceny by check and one count of uttering a false check. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, the defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty. The judge granted the motion with respect to the larceny charge and found the defendant guilty of uttering. …

“On May 11, 2017, the defendant entered a bank (where she had an account), presented her driver’s license, and cashed a check made payable to her in the amount of $950. The check was drawn from the Adams Family Living Trust and was purportedly signed by Phyllis Adams, a trustee on the account (account holder). The account holder reported to the police that she was missing checks from her checkbook after noticing that several checks had been drawn on her account. At trial, the account holder testified that she had never before seen or met the defendant and would have no reason to pay her. …

“‘The elements of the crime of uttering, G.L.c. 267, §5, are “(1) offering as genuine; (2) an instrument; (3) known to be forged; (4) with the intent to defraud.”’ … The Commonwealth presented the following evidence to prove the defendant’s knowledge that the check was forged, and intent to defraud: (1) the account holder did not authorize the check, (2) the account holder had no reason to pay the defendant, and (3) the defendant cashed the check drawn on the account of a stranger. None of these facts adequately establishes the elements of knowledge and intent. Although the first two pieces of evidence contribute to an inference that the check was forged, the Commonwealth failed to connect those facts to the defendant. … Similarly, the fact that the defendant cashed a check from an account holder unknown to her is insufficient to prove that she had knowledge of the forgery or that she intended to defraud. … Thus, the evidence presented cannot sustain a conviction of uttering a false check. …

“Because the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, the judgment of the District Court is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and judgment shall enter for the defendant.”

Commonwealth v. Scordino (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-108-24) (2 pages) (Rescript) Laurie Yeshulas on appeal for the defendant; Daniel DeBlander for the commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-13474) (Sept. 24, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.