Morgan Sinclair Goodwin v. Commonwealth of Virginia
64 Va. App. 322
| Va. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant Goodwin was stopped for speeding; he identified himself as Christopher Venable and provided NY birth details.
- Deputy Craig issued three summonses in the name Christopher Venable for speeding, no operator’s license, and seatbelt; Goodwin signed as Venable.
- Two pre-printed sentences appeared on the summonses, including a non-admission clause and address certification.
- Deputy Craig later learned the true identity; another officer noted the Venable name on a separate record.
- Trial court denied motions to strike uttering charges; jury convicted Goodwin of three counts of uttering a public record under Code § 18.2-168.
- Appellate court reviews uttering under Bateman’s definition and clarifies Bennett does not impose an extra “purpose” requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of uttering under Code § 18.2-168 | Commonwealth argues uttering is satisfied by asserting a forged writing is good and valid. | Goodwin argues uttering requires a specific purpose to obtain the object mentioned in the forged writing. | Uttering defined as an assertion that a forged writing is good and valid; evidence sufficient. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to show uttering | Commonwealth contends Goodwin’s actions showed the forged signatures were true. | Goodwin contends the signatures alone do not prove uttering. | Record supports that Goodwin asserted the forged signatures were true; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bateman v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 595 (1964) (defined uttering as an assertion that a forged writing is good and valid)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 354 (2006) (applied Bateman; held signing a forged document can constitute uttering)
- Sands v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. (20 Gratt.) 800 (1871) (note on purpose language; not controlling for public records)
- Oliver v. Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 286 (2001) (affirmed uttering convictions without focusing on purpose language)
- Dillard v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 515 (2000) (analyzed sufficiency of forging and uttering a check)
- Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 265 (1986) (affirmed uttering conviction for forged check)