Opinion ID: 2188536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: is the crime of use of false instrument to obtain public funds, sdcl 4-9-5, a specific intent crime?

Text: Defendant was charged with violations of SDCL 4-9-4 Declaration in lieu of verification or oathFalse statement as perjury, and SDCL 4-9-5, False instrument to obtain public funds as theft. Defendant contends these are specific intent crimes. The trial court found otherwise, and instructed the jury that they were general intent crimes. Whether or not a crime is a general intent or specific intent crime depends upon its legislative enactment. The legislature may forbid the doing of an act without regard to the intent or knowledge of the doer. State v. Nagel, 279 N.W.2d 911, 915 (S.D.1979); State v. Rash, 294 N.W.2d 416, 418 (S.D.1980). Additionally, the legislature may make a crime a specific intent crime under one set of circumstances, and a general intent crime under a different set of circumstances. United States v. Lardieri, 497 F.2d 317 (1974), on rehearing, 506 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir.1974); United States v. Stassi, 443 F.Supp. 661 (D.C.N.J.1977). (a) SDCL 4-9-4 (Perjury). SDCL 4-9-4 states in pertinent part: Whenever any law of this state requires a claim or account against the state, or any of its political subdivisions ... to be verified or sworn to ... prior to presentation or payment, it shall be sufficient compliance with such law if the claimant... shall sign a statement printed or written thereon in the following form: I declare and affirm under the penalties of perjury that this claim has been examined by me, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, is in all things true and correct. Any person who shall sign a claim or account bearing the statement written or printed thereon as provided for in this section, knowing the same to be false or untrue, in whole or in part, shall be guilty of perjury. (emphasis provided). Defendant argues that SDCL 4-9-4 must be read in conjunction with SDCL 22-29-1, the general perjury statute, and that the phrase intentionally and contrary to such oath found in SDCL 22-29-1 makes perjury a specific intent crime. Defendant was not charged under SDCL 22-29-1. Nothing in SDCL 4-9-4 indicates that it was the legislature's intent that it must be read in conjunction with SDCL 22-29-1. SDCL 4-9-4 sets forth a separate and distinct method of committing perjury. This court over the past several years has repeatedly analyzed the specific intent/general intent dichotomy. The use of the terms intentionally or knowingly merely designate that the culpability required is something more than negligence or recklessness. State v. Balint, 426 N.W.2d 316 (S.D.1988); State v. Huber, 356 N.W.2d 468 (S.D.1984); State v. Barrientos, III, 444 N.W.2d 374 (S.D.1989); State v. Bailey, 464 N.W.2d 626 (S.D.1991). SDCL 4-9-4 merely requires that the defendant know of the falsity of the statement. It does not require a mental state beyond that. For example, there is no requirement that the statement be made with intent to defraud or with intent to deceive. (b) SDCL 4-9-5 (Theft). Defendant was charged under SDCL 4-9-5, False instrument to obtain public funds as theft. Defendant argues that the language of SDCL 22-30A-1 which require a finding of an intent to deprive the owner thereof must be considered. SDCL 4-9-5 states in pertinent part: Any person ... who shall knowingly obtain or attempt to obtain any public moneys or funds from the state of South Dakota, or any of its political subdivisions, by means or use of any false affidavit or other instrument, where such affidavit or instrument is the basis for the claim for payment of public moneys or public funds, shall be guilty of theft. The phrase shall be guilty of theft does not, in and of itself, incorporate the general elements of theft as defined in SDCL 22-30A-1. Therefore, the language of SDCL 4-9-5 is controlling. As in the case of false statement as perjury, there is nothing in SDCL 4-9-5 which would indicate that the legislature considered theft by this method to be a specific intent crime. The crimes of theft by use of false instrument to obtain public funds and false statements as perjury, are general intent crimes. Therefore, the trial court is affirmed on issues II and III.