Opinion ID: 1266192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criminal Impersonation.

Text: The statute, insofar as applicable, defines criminal impersonation as assuming a false or fictitious identity or capacity, and in that identity or capacity, doing any act with intent to unlawfully gain a benefit or injure or defraud another. Section 18-5-113, C.R.S.1973. The defendant admits the first element, i.e., that he assumed a false identity when redeeming the gift certificates. He claims, however, that there was no prima facie showing of the second element. The second element of criminal impersonation is an act with intent unlawfully to gain a benefit or to defraud another. The act requirement is met by the defendant's passing the gift certificates in exchange for property. The certificates passed were falsified when a false name was written to facilitate the passing. The defendant knew the certificates, as signed, were false. From this, intent to defraud may be inferred. See Cameron v. People, supra . Further, writing the false name demonstrates that the defendant knew he was not entitled to exchange the certificates for merchandise. We conclude that the evidence adequately proved a prima facie case of criminal impersonation. The trial court should not have dismissed the criminal impersonation count. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings on both counts. KELLEY, GROVES and LEE, JJ., concur.