Bettes v. the State, 329 Ga. App. 13

Michael Jerome Bettes was convicted of first-degree forgery after attempting to cash a $1,720 check dated Jan. 3, 2010, drawn on Southeastern Roof Decks’ account and purportedly signed by owner John Dumas.
The presented check was typewritten except for a signature that Dumas testified was not his and the account number was incorrect; Dumas had not employed Bettes and did not know him.
Bank teller Carol Tate, alerted by a prior fraudulent check incident, asked for ID, called Dumas, and contacted police; Bettes cooperated with the officer and did not flee.
Defense presented limited testimony: Bettes’ wife said he did temporary/day labor and had been away working before his arrest; Bettes did not testify.
The jury asked during deliberations for more detail about Bettes’ alleged work and witnesses but were told the evidence was closed and to continue deliberating.
Bettes moved for a directed verdict and later for a new trial arguing (1) insufficient evidence of knowing possession/intent to defraud and (2) improper exclusion of his statements to the arresting officer and to his wife; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove knowing possession/intent to defraud	Bettes: State failed to prove he knowingly possessed a forged check or intended to defraud; only circumstantial evidence and plausible alternative (he had done day labor)	State: Circumstantial evidence (possession of a forged check drawn on account of a person he did not work for, provenance of check linked to Bettes’ name/address, attempt to cash) supports inference of knowing possession and intent	Affirmed: Circumstantial evidence, viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, permitted a rational jury to find Bettes knowingly possessed a forged check and intended to defraud
Exclusion of statements to officer and wife	Bettes: Trial court erred in sustaining hearsay objections and excluding his statements and his wife’s testimony about his statements	State: Statements were hearsay/self-serving and objection was timely; defendant failed to proffer the excluded testimony at trial or at new-trial hearing	Affirmed: Error claim waived/forfeited by failure to proffer; appellate court cannot review excluded evidence not presented or proffered

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Russu v. State, 321 Ga. App. 695 (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency in forgery context)
Matula v. State, 264 Ga. 673 (passing a forged instrument as genuine is conclusive of intent to defraud)
Collins v. State, 258 Ga. App. 400 (knowledge and intent to defraud may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
Merritt v. State, 285 Ga. 778 (circumstantial proof need only exclude other reasonable hypotheses)