Court Opinion

ID: 9768121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:43:12.921294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:36.745088
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
I dissent to the majority’s disposition of this case. In my opinion knowledge that the instrument was forged is an essential element of forgery under the mode of prosecution in this case. In the absence of such a requirement, the innocent passing of a forged check received in payment is a felony even if the recipient has no knowledge that the check was forged. I dissent to such a construction of Y.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 32.21, and adhere to the reasoning set out in the Court’s opinion on original submission.
Furthermore, I observe that the new plurality asserts, “[T]he Legislature did not intend to include knowledge that the instrument was forged an essential element of the offense of forgery,” and then, in contradictory fashion, later pronounces, “[K]now-ledge that the instrument is forged is an element which is strongly implied in the statutory definition of forgery. . . .” This new element, according to the plurality, suddenly arises upon a motion to quash. Such knowledge either is an element or is not an element; there is no middle ground. I dissent to the plurality s internal contradictions as well as its ultimate disposition of the issue.
ONION, P. J., joins in this dissent.