People v. Kovacs
2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 1076
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Kovacs indicted on five counts of forgery under 18-5-102(1)(c) based on appraisals containing misrepresentations or omissions and Kovacs' alleged certification of those appraisals.
- District court dismissed the indictment after questioning whether the appraisals were “commercial instruments” and whether false statements in genuine instruments could support forgery.
- Court questioned whether adding material false information satisfied “add or insert” to reach a legally operative instrument and whether a completed instrument could be one Kovacs authored.
- Colorado Court of Appeals held that “falsely complete” under 18-5-101(8)(b) expands to include completing an incomplete instrument by adding materially false information or statements that render it operative, regardless of instrument genuineness.
- Remanded for the district court to reconsider probable cause and to quash the indictment consistent with the statutory construction of 18-5-101(8)(b) and without addressing whether the appraisals are “commercial instruments.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What does ‘falsely complete’ mean in 18-5-101(8)(b)? | Kovacs argued false completion requires non-genuine instruments. | People argued broader completion of genuine or non-genuine instruments by false information. | False completion includes adding materially false information or statements to any instrument to render it operative. |
| Does a false completion of a genuine document constitute forgery? | Kovacs contends genuine instruments cannot be forged. | People contend false completion of genuine documents can be forgery if it renders instrument operative. | Yes, genuine or non-genuine instruments can be forged when false information renders them legally operative. |
| Should the district court have dismissed for lack of probable cause given the instrument type? | Indictment based on misrepresented appraisals cannot meet forgery definition. | Statutory construction supports forgery with false completion regardless of instrument genuineness. | Reversed; case remanded for reconsideration under the proper statutory construction. |
| Is the 1994 amendment to 18-5-101(8)(b) properly understood to expand De Rose? | A narrow view limits scope to non-genuine instruments. | Amendment expands forgery to false completion in genuine or incomplete instruments. | Statutory amendment expands scope beyond De Rose’s limits. |
| Does this expansion chill legitimate business or unduly enlarge criminal law? | Expansion could chill commercial activity. | Lawful business activity is not unduly hampered; dual criminal/civil liability exists where applicable. | Construction is narrow, intent-based, and does not unduly chill commerce. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Rose v. People, 64 Colo. 332 (1918) (false statements in genuine instruments were not forgery under prior law)
- People v. Brown, 193 Colo. 120 (1977) (inserting fictitious name to make instrument acceptable constituted forgery when necessary)
- People v. Dandels, 240 P.3d 409 (Colo. App. 2009) (statutory interpretation framework and plain-language approach)