Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051946-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,734 chars

1
Courts in several other jurisdictions have held that the use of another’s social security number
supports a forgery conviction. McCleaf v. Carroll, 416 F. Supp. 2d 283, 293 (D. Del. 2006)
(defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge evidence supporting forgery
conviction where defendant signed arrest card with a false social security number, birthdate,
name, and scar/tattoo information); State v. DeGenero, 2017-Ohio-624, 85 N.E.3d 170, 174-75
(2017) (sufficient evidence supported defendant’s forgery conviction where defendant made
purchases with a credit card he had obtained by providing his deceased grandmother’s name and
social security number); Bocanegra v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1026, 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)
(sufficient evidence supported defendant’s intent to defraud in forgery prosecution where
defendant did not have the documents to work legally in the United States and used another
person’s name and social security number to obtain employment); Jackson v. State, 277 Ga. App.
801, 803-04, 627 S.E.2d 853 (2006) (trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for
directed verdict on forgery charge where defendant cashed a check made out to the victim after
endorsing it with victim’s name and social security number).

9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 51946-1-II

Accordingly, we hold that sufficient evidence supports the conclusion that Smith falsely

completed the bank account applications.

B. PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING LEGAL EFFICACY

Smith argues that the trial court erred by declining to give his proposed jury instruction

on the definition of “instrument,” which included the legal efficacy requirement. We disagree