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

Heading: Second Degree Forgery.

Text: A person commits second degree forgery, if, with intent to defraud, he falsely makes, completes, alters, or utters a written instrument which . . . affect[s] a legal right . . .. Section 18-5-103(1)(a), [3] C.R.S.1973. The defendant's intent to defraud is amply evidenced by his use of a fictitious name on the gift certificates. Where a defendant had passed an instrument he knows to be false, the factfinder may infer an intent to defraud, particularly if the defendant enjoyed the proceeds of the passing. See Cameron v. People, 170 Colo. 504, 505, 462 P.2d 606, 607 (1969) (no showing defendant knew of the falsity), and the cases there cited. The defendant argues, however, that he did not falsely make, complete, alter, or utter the gift certificates. He claims that, since the certificates were valid without his signature, his use of the false signature did not supply the requirement that the act be done falsely. This court has held, however, that where a defendant finds a valid money order with the payee space left blank, then fills in his own name and cashes it, his action constitutes alteration of the instrument for purposes of the forgery statute. People v. Pool, 185 Colo. 131, 522 P.2d 102 (1974) (upheld forgery conviction pursuant to C.R.S.1963, 40-6-1). The present case is analytically very similar to the Pool case. Here the defendant claims that insertion of a name was not essential to the validity of the certificates. From this he concludes that one who thus inserts a false name does not make, complete, alter or utter the certificate. In Pool , insertion of the name in the payee blank was nonessential. [4] Yet, this court held that the insertion constituted an alteration. Similarly, the defendant's act of inserting a fictitious name in the For blank constituted an alteration. Where any material portion of the instrument, including a name or signature, is fictitious, a forgery conviction may be sustained. Nahler v. People, 159 Colo. 20, 409 P.2d 508 (1966). Cf. United States v. Tasher, 453 F.2d 244 (10th Cir. 1972) (initials on money order). Here the alteration was material because without the fictitious name inserted, the store would not have accepted the certificates. The final element of second degree forgery is likewise present, since the falsified instrument affects a legal right. Safeway was obligated to deliver property of retail value equivalent to the face value of the gift certificates. Certificates for the delivery of property are instruments susceptible to forgery. Carney v. United States, 163 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1947), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 824, 68 S.Ct. 165, 92 L.Ed. 400 (1947) (gas rationing coupons). A prima facie case of second degree forgery was shown, and the trial court erred in dismissing that count.