Forgery and Bad Check Charges in Virginia
It’s been said more than once by a judge that issuing a bad check is the same as stealing. The courts are sometimes happy to punish the offense just as harshly. In any case, forgery and false uttering are offenses commonly prosecuted in Fairfax County, Virginia. Virginia law criminalizes many kinds of forgeries. Falsifying documents ranging from voter ID cards to checks are dealt with severely under the statute. The offense also includes obtaining another person’s signature by fraud as well as issuing falsified legal documents. An utterance is an attempt to use such a forged document. Both offenses are Class 5 Felonies. This means that they each carry a potential sentence of between one and ten years or up to 12 months and $2,500.00. If you have forged a document and then attempted to use it, you can be convicted and sentenced for both.
What are the Elements of Forgery?
In general, for a forgery conviction the Commonwealth must prove several elements. In other words, the Commonwealth needs to show that the document was created with the intent to defraud. Note that the document need not be entirely created from scratch. A forgery conviction can be had where the defendant modifies a document as well. What is important, though, is that the modification or false statement is intentional. A mistake in a legal document will not lead to a conviction. In some instances, this doctrine of mistake can serve as an effective defense. Notably, only certain documents are included under the statutes. Basically, the included documents are public records, coins or bills or other documents that have an impact on the legal rights of another. The classic example of a document that can get someone in trouble is a will. Other documents like notes and letters that have no legal significance will not get you in trouble.
What are the Elements of Utterance?
Uttering is not defined in the statute, but is a very real offense in Virginia law. The key with utterance is that the defendant offered up a forged document with the intent to defraud. The Commonwealth needs to prove that the defendant knew that the document was a fake when he made the attempt to use it. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals has said that it can be assumed that the defendant knew that the document was a fake through his or her possession of it. The Commonwealth can also rely on the defendant’s actions to show that he knew the document was false. In one example, the defendant essentially ran away after the store owner attempted to ascertain the validity of a check. This was enough to prove the knowledge element of uttering. However, the document has to actually be a forgery for an uttering conviction. It’s not enough that the defendant merely believes that the document is false. There have been cases in the past where a defense has been successfully raised because the Commonwealth has failed to introduce evidence that the document was false.
