431 P.3d 1121
Wyo.2018Background
- Defendant Paul D. Mathewson was arraigned on a trespassing-related failure-to-appear; the magistrate signed a written bond order requiring $2,000 cash bond and sent it to the circuit court by e-mail and mail.
- The circuit court clerk printed the emailed order, took it to the jail for Mathewson to sign; Mathewson signed and checked an additional box labeled "Acceptable Bail Bond" (allowing surety) that the magistrate had not checked.
- The clerk noticed the discrepancy between the printed copy and the original e-mailed version, reported it, and the State charged Mathewson with fraudulently altering a government record in violation of Wyo. Stat. § 6-3-604.
- Mathewson waived a jury, was found guilty after a bench trial, and appealed, arguing the printed unsigned/unfiled bond form was not a "government record" and that the State failed to prove the requisite fraudulent intent.
- The trial court and this Court concluded the printed bond order fell within the statutory definition of "government record," and that the circumstantial evidence (the checked box and its likely effect) supported a finding of fraudulent intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the printed, unsigned, unfiled bond form is a "government record" under § 6-3-604(b) | The form was a government record because it was authorized by law and pertained to the court | It was not a government record until signed by defendant and physically filed | Held: It was a government record—authorized by law and pertaining to the court, so § 6-3-604 applies |
| Whether State proved "fraudulently" (specific intent) required by § 6-3-604(a)(ii) | State: Circumstantial evidence (checking the box) supports inference Mathewson intended to secure an unwarranted release advantage | Mathewson: No evidence he tried to use the alteration or that anyone would accept it; thus no fraudulent intent | Held: Sufficient evidence of specific fraudulent intent—act of checking the box supported inference he intended to gain an advantage |
| Whether reliance or actual effect on release is required for fraud element | State: Reliance is not required; statute does not make reliance an element | Mathewson: Because no one relied and he did not attempt to use it, the alteration had no effect so no fraud | Held: Reliance/actual effect is irrelevant; mens rea at time of alteration controls |
| Whether defendant had implied authority to modify the form when signing | State: No authority shown; checking the box was an unauthorized alteration | Mathewson: He was authorized to modify the document when signing | Held: Argument rejected for lack of legal support; no authority shown to permit the modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Adekale v. State, 344 P.3d 761 (Wyo. 2015) (statutory construction reviewed de novo; plain language controls)
- Dean v. State, 668 P.2d 639 (Wyo. 1983) (definition and nature of specific-intent crimes)
- Mraz v. State, 378 P.3d 280 (Wyo. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review; accept State's evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Cronin v. State, 678 P.2d 370 (Wyo. 1984) (fraud as statutory element does not require victim reliance)
- Smith v. State, 721 P.2d 1088 (Wyo. 1986) (absence of reliance does not preclude conviction where statute does not require reliance)