Opinion
CR-17-2103 CR-17-3257
10-26-2018
STATE OF MAINE v. TANYA SANTOS Defendant
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
JED J. FRENCH JUDGE
At the conclusion of a jury trial held on September 18 and 19, 2018, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all twelve counts charged, which included four counts of Aggravated Forgery, four counts of Forgery, and four counts of Theft by Deception. The issue before the court is whether Defendant is entitled to a Judgment of Acquittal as to the Forgery and Aggravated Forgery convictions, Defendant having moved for a Judgment of Acquittal after the State rested and again at the close of the evidence. The court reserved decision on Defendant's motion, and, after the jury returned its verdict, requested that the parties brief the issue. Having considered Defendant's Memorandum of Law, filed October 5, 2018, and the State's Reply Memorandum of Law and Argument, filed October 19, 2018, in light of the standard governing motions for Judgment of Acquittal, the court finds and concludes as follows:
Under Maine law, "[a] person is guilty of forgery if, with the intent to defraud or deceive another person or government, he: A. Falsely makes, completes, endorses or alters a written instrument, or knowingly utters or possesses such an instrument; or B. Causes another, by deception, to sign or execute a written instrument, or utters such an instrument." 17-A M.R.S. § 703(1). In arguing that Defendant's forgery convictions should stand, the State points to evidence adduced at trial establishing that Defendant, with intent to defraud or deceive, knowingly possessed and used fake $100 bills. The problem with the State's argument is that, while the State is correct that to be convicted of forgery a person need not herself have falsely made, completed, endorsed, or altered a written instrument, the written instrument does need to have been falsely made, completed, endorsed, or altered by someone.
The State contends that the evidence supports a finding that the fake bills Defendant possessed used were falsely made. The State's argument, however, does not take into account the statutory definition of "falsely made." Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 701(3): "A person 'falsely makes' a written instrument when he makes or draws a complete written instrument in its entirety ... which purports to be an authentic creation of its ostensible author, maker or drawer ...." In other words, a person who possesses and uses a written instrument which is admittedly fake and which does not purport to be authentic may not properly be convicted of forgery. Inspection of the bills at issue makes clear that they do not on their face "purport to be authentic." On the contrary, although resembling actual currency, the $100 bills plainly state on the front "For Motion Picture Use Only" along with a seal stating "Cinema Props" and the words "Prop Money." In addition, the words "For Cinematic Use Only" likewise appear five times on each bill - twice on the front and three times on the back, and Benjamin Franklin's visage,, with its smirk and raised eyebrow, evidences a lack of authenticity. Since the bills do not purport to be authentic, they were not "falsely made," and since there is no evidence that they were falsely made, completed, endorsed, or altered -- by Defendant or by anyone else - Defendant's possession and use of the bills cannot properly support Defendant's convictions for forgery.
Defendant's convictions for aggravated forgery cannot stand for the same reason. Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 702, "A person is guilty of aggravated forgery if, with intent to defraud or deceive another person or government, he falsely makes, completes, endorses or alters a written instrument, or knowingly utters or possesses such an instrument" and the instrument forged falls within one of the categories set forth in § 702(1)(A-E). Assuming without deciding that the bills at issue are "[p]art of an issue of money ... issued by a government or governmental instrumentality," and thus within the scope of § 702(1)(A), because the bills do not "purport to be an authentic creation/' and accordingly were not "falsely made," the evidence adduced at trial does not support Defendant's aggravated forgery convictions.
Pursuant to M.R, U. Crim. P, 29(a), the court "shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more crimes charged ... if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such crime or crimes." Having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the court finds that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support Defendant's forgery and aggravated forgery convictions, and accordingly GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Acquittal as to each of Defendant's forgery and aggravated forgery convictions. It is therefore hereby ORDERED that Judgment of Acquittal shall enter as to Counts 1-6 of the Superseding Indictment in Docket No. 17-2103 as well as to Counts 1-2 and of the Indictment in Docket No, 17-3257.
The clerk shall schedule this matter for sentencing on Defendant's convictions for Theft by Deception at the earliest possible date,