203 A.3d 250
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- In August 2015, St. Moritz Labor Services discovered 18 fraudulent duplicate payroll checks drawn on its commercial account; one $467.21 check named and listed the address of Dominique William Green.
- Green never worked for or had any relationship with St. Moritz and had no reason to be a payee on its payroll checks.
- Green cashed the check at K‑Mart using his shopper card; he told police he received the check in the mail, didn’t know its origin, and said, “I only did it once.”
- Criminal charges initially included forgery, access device fraud, and bad checks; preliminary hearing dismissed the latter two and the Commonwealth filed information charging forgery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101(a)(3).
- After a non‑jury trial Green was convicted of uttering a forged writing, sentenced to two years’ probation and restitution, and appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence as to mens rea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Green) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Green knew the check was forged (mens rea for § 4101(a)(3)). | Circumstantial evidence (payee named, address on check, commercial payroll format, Green had no employment relationship, his statement “I only did it once,” and cashing at K‑Mart) permits inference Green knew the check was not legitimate. | Mere possession or negotiation of a forged check is insufficient; Commonwealth did not prove how Green obtained the check or what he knew about St. Moritz, so evidence is too weak and equivocal to establish guilty knowledge. | The court affirmed: the totality of circumstances supported a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Green knew the check was forged when he uttered it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Orie, 88 A.3d 983 (Pa. Super. 2014) (circumstantial evidence may establish knowledge of forgery and entire record must be viewed in Commonwealth’s favor)
- Commonwealth v. Myer, 489 A.2d 900 (Pa. Super. 1985) (fraudulent intent may be inferred from totality of defendant’s conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Gibson, 416 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 1979) (possession of a forged check alone may not support forgery conviction where no circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (appellate court may not reweigh evidence; review asks whether evidence believed by fact‑finder suffices for verdict)