Court Opinion

ID: 9549686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:23:17.089221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:45.228590
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). The majority opinion distinguishes State v. Tooke, 81 N.M. 618, 471 P.2d 188 (Ct.App.1970). This is a distinction without a difference. In Tooke, the defendant was convicted of attempted forgery because the defendant presented a forged check in a store. The check-out clerk asked the “okay-er” to ascertain its validity. The “okayer” had physical possession of the check. This physical transfer to the “okayer” was not a passing of any interest in the check. This was attempted forgery. In the instant case, defendant presented the check to the bank teller. This was a transfer of interest. The defendant was guilty of forgery. The “okayer” in the store, and the bank teller in the bank were virtually identical. They were store/bank agents with authority to tender money to defendants in exchange for the check. There was or there was not a transfer of interest. Both defendants would be guilty of the same offense — either attempted forgery or actual forgery. How the physical passing of the check in Tooke established attempted forgery, and physical passing of check in Linam established forgery disturbs the judicial mind. To me the distinction is gobbledygook. The State says: The Court of Appeals should re-examine their decision and reasoning of State v. Tooke, supra, in light of U.J.I. Criminal, No. 16.34 and in light of the discussion herein. The court gave U.J.I. Crim. No. 16.34: For you to find the defendant guilty of forgery as charged in Count II, the State must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime: 1. The defendant gave or delivered to Albuquerque National Bank a check knowing it to have a false signature intending to injure, deceive or cheat Albuquerque National Bank or another; 2. This happened in New Mexico on or about the 21st day of May, 1976. Committee Commentary says: Relying on the Uniform Commercial Code for definitions, the Court of Appeals has held that this crime requires an issuing and transfer of an interest and not merely a transfer. State v. Tooke, 81 N.M. 618, 471 P.2d 188 (Ct.App.1970). A transfer, etc. which does not come within the commercial law definitions is an attempted forgery. State v. Tooke, supra. The court must determine the commercial law question as a matter of law. The instruction requires that the jury make only a determination of the physical transfer. [Emphasis added.] U.J.I. Criminal became effective September 1,1975. “This Court is to follow precedents of the Supreme Court; it is not free to abolish instructions approved by the Supreme Court.” State v. Scott, 90 N.M. 256, 561 P.2d 1349 (Ct.App.1977). Upon this rule, I specially concur. Tooke has been overruled. The State need not prove as an element of its case that the defendant transferred an interest to the victim. An attempt to commit forgery “is an act done with intent to commit such crime but which fails of completion.” State v. Lopez, 81 N.M. 107, 108, 464 P.2d 23, 24 (Ct.App.1969), cert. denied, 81 N.M. 140, 464 P.2d 559 (1970). When such attempt fails of completion, it should be a matter of future concern. Other portions of the opinion need clarification but since I concur, I concur.