Lazaro Miranda, a/k/a Randall Izquierdo v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 64A03-1601-CR-124

On May 7, 2014, Lake County Drug Task Force officers stopped a vehicle on I-94 after observing evasive driving and nervous behavior by the occupants; Defendant was the passenger.
Officers observed Defendant clutching a backpack, avoiding eye contact, giving a false name and birthdate, and offering inconsistent travel explanations with the driver.
A consensual search of the backpack revealed 48 counterfeit $50 bills ($2,400), stored in envelopes/dividers, plus handwritten directions to Grand Rapids, a burner phone, two wallets without ID, and slips describing electronics with a Grand Rapids area code.
Defendant refused to give truthful identifying information at the jail and was identified via fingerprints as Randall Izquierdo.
Indicted for Class C felony forgery (intent to defraud by possessing counterfeit currency); jury convicted on forgery, trial court found habitual offender, and sentenced to an aggregate 14 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove intent to defraud for Class C forgery	State: circumstantial evidence (possession of large quantity of counterfeit bills, their poor quality, stash methods, travel directions, burner phone, false ID, evasive conduct) supports inference of intent to defraud	Defendant: no proof he knew bills were counterfeit; bills not so obviously fake to alert an ordinary person; nervousness explained by immigration status and an outstanding warrant	Court: Affirmed — reasonable jury could infer knowledge and intent to defraud from the quantity/quality of bills, storage, travel-related items, and deceptive/evasive conduct

Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Fuentes v. State, 10 N.E.3d 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (consider evidence most favorable to the verdict and reasonable inferences)
Oster v. State, 992 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (view conflicting evidence in light most favorable to trial court)
Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. 2012) (affirmation standard unless no reasonable fact-finder could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 2005) (jury's province to weigh conflicting evidence)
Bocanegra v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (intent to defraud requires intent to deceive and cause reliance/injury)
Wendling v. State, 465 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. 1984) (forgery intent principles)
Miller v. State, 693 N.E.2d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence and defendant's conduct)
Brown v. State, 64 N.E.3d 1219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (infer intent from surrounding circumstances and conduct)
Diallo v. State, 928 N.E.2d 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (intent as a mental state inferred from circumstances)
Benefield v. State, 904 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (knowledge of falsity relevant to intent though not a separate element)