Opinion ID: 2360981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Forgery

Text: The State offered the following circumstantial evidence in support of the forgery charge: Evans' testimony that appellant orally identified himself as Kevin Fawcett and that appellant signed the fingerprint card in his presence; and Lano's testimony that another man came into the police station and claimed to be Kevin Fawcett. The State did not offer the allegedly forged document into evidence and it did not elicit testimony from anyone who saw appellant sign the fingerprint card with the name Kevin Fawcett. The standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence, is whether, any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [3] After a careful review of the record below, we agree with appellant that the State failed prove the forgery charge beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the elements of the crime of forgery is the existence of a written instrument that has been falsified in one or more ways: A person is guilty of forgery when, intending to defraud, deceive or injure another person, or knowing that the person is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the person: . . . . Makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues or transfers any written instrument which purports to be the act of another person, whether real or fictitious, who did not authorize that act.... [4] The written instrument in this case was the fingerprint card, yet the State failed to place the card in evidence, or establish that it had been falsified [5] . There was, as a result, no evidence of one of the elements of the crime of forgery and this failure of proof required a judgment of acquittal.