Opinion ID: 2339611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Check Fraud Conviction

Text: [¶ 15] Rodgers challenges the propriety of his conviction for check fraud on essentially three grounds: the Information did not properly allege the crime; the State did not sufficiently prove all the elements of the crime; and the district court reversibly erred by providing the jurors with a copy of an Information that did not correctly reflect the elements of the charged crime. We need not address the merits of Rodgers' various complaints because we agree that insufficient proof exists establishing every element of the crime. [¶ 16] The benchmark for reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is adequate to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Dettloff v. State, 2007 WY 29, ¶ 23, 152 P.3d 376, 383 (Wyo.2007); Statezny v. State, 2001 WY 22, ¶ 15, 18 P.3d 641, 645 (Wyo.2001). We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury. Instead, our duty is to determine whether a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Pryor v. State, 2009 WY 95, ¶ 7, 212 P.3d 635, 637 (Wyo.2009); Conine v. State, 2008 WY 146, ¶ 5, 197 P.3d 156, 159 (Wyo.2008). We review questions of law, however, de novo. Dougherty v. State, 2010 WY 116, ¶ 4, 237 P.3d 403, 404 (Wyo.2010). [¶ 17] Rodgers was convicted of a violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-702(a) (LexisNexis 2011), which states: Any person who knowingly issues a check which is not paid because the drawer has insufficient funds or credit with the drawee has issued a fraudulent check and commits fraud by check. At trial, and in accordance with the statute, the district court instructed the jury that it should not convict Rodgers unless it found the State had proven the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. On or about the 8th day of July, 2008 2. In Platte County, Wyoming 3. The Defendant, Danny Arnold Rodgers 4. Knowingly issued 5. A check in the amount of less than $1,000.00 6. Which check was not paid because the drawer of the check had insufficient funds or credit with the drawee. [¶ 18] The most fundamental problem with Rodgers' check fraud conviction is that, as a matter of law, Element 5 is not met under the facts of this case. The EFS check is not a check as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-701(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2011). This statute defines a check as a written unconditional order to pay a sum certain in money drawn on a bank, payable on demand and signed by the drawer. The EFS check clearly states on its face DO NOT CASH WITHOUT CALLING. It further states: This check is not valid and will not be honored without obtaining an authorization number before cashing. To obtain an authorization number [contact EFS]. ... If this check already has an authorization number, please call and verify the number. Given this language, it is clear that the EFS check is not an unconditional order to pay. [¶ 19] Additionally, there is a total lack of proof supporting Element 6. Rodgers' criminal culpability was based on the fact that he was the drawer of the check. A drawer is defined as a person either real or fictitious whose name appears on a check as the primary obligor whether the actual signature is that of himself or of a person authorized to draw the check in his behalf. § 6-3-701(a)(iv). Rodgers' name does not appear on the EFS check as the primary obligor. Rather, that distinction belongs to EFS Transportation Services. [¶ 20] Although we find there are other problems with the propriety of this conviction, we need not go further. While we do not question that a crime was committed by Rodgers, the facts simply do not support a conviction for check fraud as defined by Wyoming law. Accordingly, we reverse Rodgers' check fraud conviction.