Opinion ID: 2508761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legal Efficacy

Text: As to this ground, Brandt contends the Edisto Farm letter lacks legal efficacy because it could not have served as the foundation for the legal liability of Elizabeth Gooding or her law firm. In support of his argument, Brandt cites the Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Lee-Grigg, 374 S.C. 388, 649 S.E.2d 41 (Ct.App.2007), aff'd, 387 S.C. 310, 692 S.E.2d 895 (2010). Specifically, Brandt directs the Court's attention to the following language: To constitute forgery, it is essential that the falsely made or altered instrument possess some apparent legal efficacy; otherwise it would have no tendency to defraud. As long as a forged instrument is the apparent foundation of legal liability, the instrument need not be complete in all its particulars to amount to forgery. Id. at 402, 649 S.E.2d at 48 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Additionally, Brandt avers the letter did not have legal efficacy to support the forgery conviction as its sole value was to provide evidence in the civil lawsuit. Because Brandt believes he had a viable claim for legal malpractice irrespective of the letter, he asserts the letter had no legal efficacy. Brandt explains that Gooding's conduct, and not the letter, served as the basis for instituting his legal malpractice claim. In support of these contentions, Brandt relies on three out-of-state cases [7] and the following provision from Corpus Juris Secundum: The element of forgery requiring that the defendant has falsely made or altered an instrument purporting to have legal efficacy does not include instances where the sole legal value of the instrument is its potential use as evidence. 37 C.J.S. Forgery § 6 (Supp.2010). We find Brandt's arguments fail for several reasons. Initially, Brandt employs an overly-narrow interpretation of the legal efficacy element. Because this case involves a letter, as opposed to a traditionally-forged negotiable document such as a check, Brandt attempts to negate the forgery conviction on the ground a forged letter could not directly and definitively establish Gooding's duty to Brandt. Our appellate courts' decisions, including Lee-Grigg, have taken a broad approach as to what type of document can constitute the basis of a forgery conviction and the requisite effect the document must have on the alleged forgery victim. In terms of the types of documents involved in forgery, our appellate courts have not limited a conviction solely to negotiable instruments nor have the courts precluded a conviction where the forged document served as an evidentiary basis in a civil trial. See, e.g., State v. Floyd, 36 S.C.L. (5 Strob.) 58 (1850) (considering conviction involving a forged receipt that was used in the defense of the underlying civil suit; stating [m]any statutes have been passed . . . to enlarge the range of the common law as to the description of instruments that should be protected against the cunning perpetrators of this offence to forge); State v. Murray, 72 S.C. 508, 52 S.E. 189 (1905) (affirming forgery conviction involving a lease that defendant had offered into evidence in a civil case for specific performance of the contract); State v. Zimmerman, 79 S.C. 289, 60 S.E. 680 (1908) (affirming forgery conviction involving a false entry made in a public record with intent to deceive and defraud). Furthermore, the requisite prejudicial effect of a document in a forgery proceeding has been broadly construed by our appellate courts. See Lee-Grigg, 374 S.C. at 402, 649 S.E.2d at 48 (discussing legal efficacy of a forged instrument and stating, Any writing that may defraud or prejudice another, or that, if genuine, would have legal effect or operate as the foundation of another man's liability may be the subject of forgery. It is sufficient if the forged instrument, believed to be genuine, might have operated to the prejudice of another.); State v. Webster, 88 S.C. 56, 58, 70 S.E. 422, 423 (1911) (The purpose of the statute against forgeries is to protect society against fabrication, falsification, and the uttering, publishing, and passing of forged instruments, which, if genuine, would establish or defeat some claim, impose some duty, or create some liability, or work some prejudice in law to another, in his right of person or property. (citations omitted)); see also State v. Bullock, 54 S.C. 300, 311-12, 32 S.E. 424, 428-29 (1899) (It is not necessary to state how the instrument could have been used for the purpose of fraud. It is enough if it appears from the character of the instrument, together with the provisions of the statute, that it might have been so used in connection with other facts, real or simulated, either then existing, or with which it was to be afterwards connected. (citation omitted)). [8] Applying our appellate courts' broad interpretation of forgery, we conclude the State presented sufficient evidence of this element to withstand Brandt's motion for a directed verdict as to the legal efficacy of the Edisto Farm letter. Gooding testified the letter, if found to be true, would have established her connection with Brandt almost three months before she had knowledge of him being involved in the land transaction. Equally important, Gooding testified the letter would have contradicted her sworn deposition testimony. Gooding also stated that everyone has pointed to that letter from the very beginning as some evidence of [her] culpability. In addition to Gooding, other witnesses testified regarding the significance of the letter. Richter, Brandt's attorney who initiated the legal malpractice claim, confirmed Gooding's assessment that the letter would have significantly impacted the legal malpractice lawsuit. In his testimony, Professor Freeman emphasized that the letter was very, very significant, affected Gooding's credibility as a witness and, in turn, strengthened Brandt's case against Gooding. Summers, who adamantly denied his signature on the letter, also confirmed the significance of the letter in that it directly contradicted his deposition testimony and would have established Brandt's version of what transpired regarding the land transaction. Clearly, this testimony established that the forged letter had legal efficacy in that it had the potential of prejudicing or damaging Gooding in the civil lawsuit as well as subjecting her to perjury charges and potential ethical violations.