What You Need to Know if You’re Charged with Uttering a Forged Check – Lessons from Recent Massachusetts Cases
If you've been charged with uttering a forged check in Massachusetts, you're likely feeling overwhelmed and unsure of what happens next. The charge of uttering forgery can be intimidating, but you should know that not every accusation leads to a conviction. As criminal defense lawyers, we understand that these cases can be highly complex, and the Commonwealth must meet a very high burden of proof to convict you.
In this blog post, we will discuss two recent Massachusetts cases, Commonwealth v. Rachelle Scordino and Commonwealth v. Dominique M. Oliver. These cases show how critical it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant knew the check was forged and had the intent to defraud. If you or someone you know is facing similar charges, understanding how the courts handle these elements can help you mount a strong defense.
Understanding the Charge: What Is Uttering a Forged Check?
Under Massachusetts law (G. L. c. 267, § 5), uttering a forged check is a serious offense. The prosecution must prove four essential elements to convict you:
Offering the instrument as genuine: You must have presented the check as if it were valid.
The instrument was forged: The check must be proven to be a forgery.
Knowledge of the forgery: You must have known that the check was forged.
Intent to defraud: The Commonwealth must prove that you intended to deceive or defraud someone by cashing the check.
A key takeaway from both Scordino and Oliver is that the Commonwealth cannot rely on speculation. They must present clear, concrete evidence showing you knew the check was forged and intended to commit fraud.
Let’s dive into these two cases and see how the courts addressed these crucial issues.
Case 1: Commonwealth v. Rachelle Scordino – Lack of Proof Leads to Acquittal
The Facts
In May 2017, Rachelle Scordino cashed a $950 check from the Adams Family Living Trust. The check appeared to be signed by Phyllis Adams, one of the trustees of the account. However, Adams later told the police she did not know Scordino, had never met her, and certainly didn’t authorize the payment. As a result, Scordino was charged with both larceny by check and uttering a forged check.
At trial, the larceny charge was dismissed, but Scordino was convicted of uttering the forged check. She appealed, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ultimately overturned her conviction.
The Court’s Decision: Why the Conviction Was Overturned
The most important aspect of this case was whether the Commonwealth could prove that Scordino knew the check was forged. The court ruled that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was insufficient.
The prosecution argued that:
Phyllis Adams did not know Scordino and had no reason to pay her.
Scordino cashed the check from an account holder who was a stranger to her.
While these facts might raise suspicion, they weren’t enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scordino knew the check was forged. The court emphasized that suspicion or guesswork is not enough to convict someone of a crime. The prosecution failed to show any evidence connecting Scordino to the forgery itself or demonstrating that she knew it was a fake check.
In the end, the SJC ruled that there was no solid evidence proving Scordino had the necessary intent or knowledge to commit the crime of uttering a forged check. Her conviction was reversed, and she was acquitted.
Key Takeaway for Defendants
This case highlights how important it is for the prosecution to prove what you knew at the time of the transaction. If you're accused of uttering a forged check, the fact that the check was fake or came from someone you don’t know is not enough for a conviction. The Commonwealth must show that you knowingly presented a forged check with the intent to defraud. Without direct evidence of your knowledge, a conviction becomes difficult to sustain.
Case 2: Commonwealth v. Dominique M. Oliver – Another Conviction Reversed
The Facts
In January 2019, Dominique M. Oliver cashed a $3,600 check at a bank. The check was drawn from the account of a person named Eileen, who later testified that she had never authorized the check and did not know Oliver. The check had a misspelled version of Eileen’s name, and the Commonwealth alleged that this was proof that Oliver should have known it was a forgery.
Oliver was convicted of uttering the forged check, but she appealed the decision. The case eventually reached the Supreme Judicial Court, which also reversed her conviction.
The Court’s Decision: Why Oliver’s Conviction Was Overturned
In Oliver’s case, the court again focused on whether the Commonwealth had presented enough evidence to prove that Oliver knew the check was forged. The prosecution argued that the following facts should have been enough to show Oliver’s knowledge:
The account holder, Eileen, did not know Oliver.
The check was for a "large amount" of money.
The check had a misspelled version of Eileen’s name.
The check had been stolen recently.
However, the court found this evidence insufficient to establish that Oliver knew the check was forged:
Unfamiliarity with the account holder: Just because Oliver didn’t know the account holder doesn’t automatically mean she knew the check was forged. Personal checks can be transferred or endorsed by third parties, making it common for someone to cash a check from someone they don’t know.
Misspelled signature: The misspelling of the account holder’s name was subtle, and the court pointed out that neither the bank teller nor anyone else involved in the transaction noticed it. This minor detail wasn’t enough to prove that Oliver knew the check was fake.
Possession of a stolen check: The prosecution couldn’t clearly establish when the check had been stolen. Without a concrete timeline, the argument that the check had been “recently stolen” didn’t carry enough weight.
Cashing a large check: While $3,600 might be considered a substantial amount, cashing a large check isn’t inherently suspicious, especially if you provide valid identification, as Oliver did.
In the end, the court ruled that the Commonwealth had failed to provide enough evidence to prove that Oliver knowingly cashed a forged check. Her conviction was reversed.
Key Takeaway for Defendants
Just like in Scordino, this case shows how critical the knowledge element is in an uttering charge. Even if the check was stolen or forged, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were aware of the forgery and intended to defraud someone. Without solid evidence of your knowledge, a jury cannot convict you based on guesswork or assumptions.
What Does This Mean for You if You’re Charged with Uttering a Forged Check?
If you’ve been charged with uttering a forged check, the cases of Rachelle Scordino and Dominique M. Oliver illustrate several important points that could affect your defense:
Knowledge is Key: The prosecution must prove that you knew the check was forged. Without direct evidence of your knowledge, such as suspicious behavior or involvement in the actual forgery, the charge becomes much harder to prove.
Intent to Defraud: The Commonwealth must also show that you intended to defraud someone by cashing the check. This is different from simply being in possession of a forged check or cashing it without knowledge of its false nature.
Circumstantial Evidence Isn’t Enough: The courts in both cases made it clear that circumstantial evidence, such as not knowing the account holder or cashing a large check, isn’t enough to sustain a conviction on its own. The prosecution must tie this evidence directly to your knowledge of the forgery.
Every Detail Matters: Minor details, like a misspelled signature, may seem incriminating, but they must be significant enough to indicate that you should have known the check was fake. In both Scordino and Oliver, such details weren’t strong enough to prove knowledge.
How Can a Brockton Criminal Defense Lawyer Help?
As experienced criminal defense attorneys, we know how to challenge the prosecution’s case and highlight weaknesses in their evidence. If you’re facing an uttering charge, our team will:
Examine the evidence for flaws or inconsistencies, focusing on whether the prosecution can truly prove that you knew the check was forged.
Challenge circumstantial evidence and argue that it isn’t sufficient to prove knowledge or intent to defraud.
Present a strong defense that demonstrates your lack of knowledge or intent, which could lead to an acquittal or a reduction in charges.
In cases like Scordino and Oliver, the court ultimately found that the evidence didn’t meet the high standard required for a conviction. If you’ve been charged with uttering a forged check, we can help you build a solid defense, protect your rights, and work toward the best possible outcome.
Contact Us Today for a Consultation
If you're facing forgery-related charges, don’t wait. Contact Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP today. We’ll walk you through your options, help you understand your rights, and provide the strong defense you need to fight the charges. We have a proven track record of success in defending clients against forgery and fraud charges, and we’re here to help you through this difficult time.