Opinion ID: 2171181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reproduction

Text: It was said in State v. Bonney, 34 Me. 383 that in an indictment for forgery, the instrument alleged to be forged should be set forth in the indictment according to its tenor. By this mode an exact copy is intended (34 Me. p. 384) and traditionally the instruments involved have been copied into the indictment. The realities of attempting to thus reproduce a variety of instruments, first by hand copying and later by the typewriter, have excused the writer from copying, in the case of a bank bill or note, its vignettes, mottoes and devices. Wharton's Criminal Law 12th Ed. § 939. This in itself illustrates that the exact copy contemplated by the law, has been practically impossible. It is fair to say that the same exception would apply to documents with advertising symbols or characters not material to the charge. State v. Flye, 26 Me. 312, 317. In cases of an allegedly forged signature, even though the signature as appearing on a typewritten copy has never informed the accused of the handwriting against which he might have to defend, an indictment in this form has never been deemed insufficient. In these respects the present availability of machine copying methods, when properly applied, can reproduce a more exact copy than has ever been heretofore available. It must follow that the use of such reproductive processes are acceptable. The trustworthiness of such reproduction has been recognized in Maine since 1935 in what are now Sections 144-146, inclusive, of Chapter 113, R.S., and the Uniform Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as Evidence Act adopted by 1961, in some instances with modifications, by the federal system and thirty-three states.