Court Opinion

ID: 9653957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:00:17.878436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:04.078872
License: Public Domain

VOLLERS, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached, but I wish to point out that the implication in the majority opinion that the evidence must be sufficient to show that the appellant knew that the check was forged is improper. Section 32.21(b), V.T.C.A. Penal Code provides that:
*161“A person commits an offense if he forges a writing with intent to defraud or harm another."
Under Section 32.21(a)(1), V.T.C.A. Penal Code, “forge” means:
“(b) To issue, transfer, register the transfer of, pass, publish, or otherwise utter a writing that is forged within the meaning of paragraph A of this subdivision . . ”
The clear wording of these provisions requires the conclusion that the passing of an instrument that is altered or executed so as to purport to be the act of another who did not authorize it is a forgery, whether or not the person passing it knows it to be forged. It becomes an offense when this person passes the forged instrument “with intent to defraud or harm another.” The intent to defraud can be established by showing that the person passing the forged instrument knows that it is forged, but this is not the exclusive method. If the State can prove in some other manner that there was an intent to defraud or harm, then this provision of the statute is satisfied. Proof of knowledge that the instrument was forged by the person passing it is not the only way that the intent to defraud can be shown.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.