407 P.3d 392
Wyo.2017Background
- Dorothy Jean Riddle deposited a $4,000 check drawn on her mother‑in‑law’s account into a joint account she shared with her son; the check bore the mother‑in‑law’s signature but she did not write or authorize it.
- The mother‑in‑law reported the check stolen after receiving an overdraft notice; surveillance showed Riddle made the deposit.
- Riddle was charged and tried for forgery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6‑3‑602(a)(ii) (the “makes/…/transfers” clause) and convicted by a jury; post‑trial motion for acquittal denied and sentence suspended with probation.
- Riddle appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to prove the specific § 6‑3‑602(a)(ii) element that a “transfer” caused the writing to purport to be the act of another.
- The State argued depositing the forged check constituted a “transfer” under (a)(ii) (or alternately could have charged “uttering” under (a)(iii)), and relied on plain meaning of “transfer” as causing funds to pass.
- The court focused on statutory interpretation and the requirement that subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) be harmonized, concluding the State’s proof did not show a transfer that caused the writing to purport to be another’s act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6‑3‑602(a)(ii) (forgery by “transfer”)? | Riddle: The State failed to show the transfer caused the writing to purport to be the act of another; at most the conduct was "uttering" under (a)(iii). | State: Depositing/passing the forged check transferred funds from victim to Riddle and thus satisfied (a)(ii); charging choice was discretionary. | Reversed: Insufficient evidence. “Transfer” in (a)(ii) requires causing the writing to purport to be another’s act (e.g., physical transfer/printing of a signature); mere passing/presenting is uttering under (a)(iii). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bean v. State, 373 P.3d 372 (Wyo. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review accepting state evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Mraz v. State, 378 P.3d 280 (Wyo. 2016) (application of sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- PacifiCorp, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 401 P.3d 905 (Wyo. 2017) (statutory interpretation: plain meaning and construing statute as whole)
- Hamburg v. State, 820 P.2d 523 (Wyo. 1991) (forgery defined as false making/altering or uttering of instrument)
- DeLeon v. State, 896 P.2d 764 (Wyo. 1995) (prosecutorial charging discretion)
- Leslie v. State, 65 P. 849 (Wyo. 1901) (historic jury instruction defining "uttering")