Bocanegra v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 295
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bocanegra applied for work at Keystone RV in Goshen, Indiana, listing the name John Giron and providing a Social Security number and documents bearing that name.
- He submitted a Social Security card and an Ohio ID card both bearing the name John Giron, which Keystone relied upon to hire him.
- A person named Giron, a resident of Illinois, received an IRS notice accusing him of unreported Keystone income, triggering police review that revealed Bocanegra used Giron’s identity and documents.
- Bocanegra admitted he was not Giron and explained a neighbor provided the documents to obtain a job with Keystone.
- Bocanegra was charged with forgery (Class C felony) and identity deception (Class D felony); a jury found him guilty of forgery, and the trial court sentenced only on forgery.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the forgery conviction and remanded to vacate the identity deception conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of intent to defraud for forgery? | Bocanegra knowingly deceived Keystone to obtain employment and used someone else’s documents. | No proof of injury to Keystone; potential injury is insufficient after 2005 counterfeiting statute. | Yes; sufficient evidence of intent to defraud existed. |
| Does potential injury suffice to prove intent to defraud under forgery post-2005 amendment? | Post-2005 decisions allow potential injury to support intent to defraud for forgery. | Actual injury is required; Keystone’s benefit alone does not show cognizable harm. | Potential injury remains a sufficient basis for intent to defraud in forgery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wendling v. State, 465 N.E.2d 169 ((Ind.1984)) (intent to defraud requires deception, reliance, and injury)
- Diallo v. State, 928 N.E.2d 250 ((Ind.Ct.App.2010)) (potential injury supports intent to defraud)
- Jacobs v. State, 640 N.E.2d 61 ((Ind.Ct.App.1994)) (potential injury to defrauded party required)
- Lohmiller v. State, 884 N.E.2d 903 ((Ind.Ct.App.2008)) (evidence of intent to defraud may be shown by employer reliance)
- Sniadecki, 924 N.E.2d 109 ((Ind.2010)) (post-2005 guidance on potential injury in forgery)
- Rawls, 936 N.E.2d 812 ((Ind.2010)) (potential injury informs forgery analysis)
- Collins v. State, 911 N.E.2d 700 ((Ind.Ct.App.2009)) (time-of-offense statute controls prosecution)
- Beaman v. Hedrick, 255 N.E.2d 828 ((Ind.1970)) (probability governs factual determinations, not possibility)