Martinez v. State
325 Ga. App. 267
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Martinez cashed or attempted to cash five counterfeit payroll checks at a convenience store between May and August 2007; four bore Staff Zone, Inc. and one bore Labor Staffing, Inc.
- Store security detained Martinez after the register/computer flagged a check as fraudulent; police recovered photocopies of prior returned counterfeit checks.
- Payroll representatives for Staff Zone and Labor Staffing testified the checks were not authentic and that Labor Staffing’s real check with the same number had been issued to another person for a different amount.
- A jury convicted Martinez of five counts of first-degree forgery and two counts of identity fraud; the trial court later reversed one identity-fraud conviction for insufficiency.
- On appeal Martinez argued (1) fatal variance between indictment and proof as to forgery counts, (2) insufficient evidence for the remaining identity-fraud conviction because the statute covered only natural persons in 2007, and (3) the trial court improperly expressed an opinion in its jury charge.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the forgery convictions, reversed the remaining identity-fraud conviction (statutory interpretation), and rejected the claim of improper judicial opinion in the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fatal variance between indictment and proof for Staff Zone checks (forgery) | Martinez: indictment alleged checks were drawn on Staff Zone’s account but proof showed incorrect account number, creating fatal variance | State: indictment described checks by number/date/amount and identified them as drawn on Wachovia on Staff Zone’s account; minor discrepancies not material | No fatal variance; evidence sufficient for four forgery convictions |
| Fatal variance/date discrepancy for Labor Staffing check (forgery) | Martinez: indictment alleged wrong date (8/13/07) vs. check dated 8/10/07 | State: other identifying details matched (check no., amount, payee, bank) so defendant was adequately apprised and protected | No fatal variance; evidence sufficient for that forgery count |
| Sufficiency of evidence for identity fraud (using corporate identifying information) | Martinez: OCGA § 16-9-121 (2007) criminalized using identifying information of an "individual," thus corporations not covered; conviction insufficient | State: statute and scheme could be read to include businesses; legislative amendments later included businesses | Reversed: in 2007 the statute’s use of "individual" meant natural persons; corporations were not victims under that version; conviction reversed |
| Trial court expressing opinion in jury charge | Martinez: charge language assumed he wrote/presented the checks, violating OCGA § 17-8-57 | State: charge read as whole correctly instructed elements and burden; no expression of judge’s belief | No error: charge considered as whole did not intimate judge’s view; instruction proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing Miranda rights)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170 (statutory construction; plain meaning rule)
- Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 132 S. Ct. 1702 (ordinary meaning of undefined statutory terms)
- Drammeh v. State, 285 Ga. App. 545 (procedural citation on viewing evidence in light most favorable to jury)