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

1,762 chars

[T]he evidence satisfies the Court that if this application for an account has legal
efficacy as the law defines it, that there is substantial evidence from which a juror
could conclude that forgery was committed beyond a reasonable doubt; that is to
say that Mr. Smith acted with intent to defraud knowing that the document that he
was completing, that he was uttering, was false.

7 Report of Proceedings (RP at 994-95.

Jury Instructions

The trial court gave a jury instruction that stated, “A person commits the crime of

Forgery when, with intent to injure or defraud, he or she falsely completes a written instrument

or possesses, offers, or puts off as true, a written instrument which he or she knows to be

forged.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 299. The court also gave the following instruction: “ ‘Written

instrument’ means any paper, document or other instrument containing written or printed matter

or its equivalent.” CP at 301.

Smith proposed an instruction that stated, “An instrument is something, which, if

genuine, may have legal effect or be the foundation of legal liability.” CP at 224. He argued that

the definition of “instrument” as proposed in his instruction reflected the common law definition.

The trial court declined to give this instruction.

Conviction

The jury found Smith guilty of two counts of forgery, one count of first degree theft, and

one count of money laundering. Smith appeals his convictions.

ANALYSIS

A. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Smith argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence on the two forgery counts

because it failed to establish that (1) the bank account applications Smith completed for A.J.

Motors had legal efficacy and (2) the applications were falsely completed. We disagree.