State v. Neger
427 Md. 582
Md.2012Background
- In 1990, Neger entered an agreement with Ephraim Ohana to take title to 300 S. Robinson St. but no entity was registered; a 1990 deed listed Izner as grantor and Ohana and E.I. Associates as grantees, with Neger not listed.
- In 1995 Ohana and wife filed bankruptcy; they indicated in a Statement of Intent that they would surrender the Property to Neger.
- In 2000, Ohana executed a power of attorney authorizing Neger to sell the Property; a 2000 document acknowledged Neger had taken over rights since 1992.
- A 2005 deed transferring the Property from Ohana/El Associates to Neger was never signed or recorded as intended; recordation in 2008 listed Neger as grantee.
- Neger was charged with counterfeiting under CR § 8-601(a)(3) for allegedly altering the 2005 deed and presenting it for recordation; the Circuit Court convicted, the Court of Special Appeals reversed, and the Maryland Supreme Court reinstated the conviction.
- The trial court’s extensive findings concluded Neger materially altered the deed and acted with intent to defraud the system of recording deeds rather than any identified individual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CR § 8-601 require defrauding a particular person? | State says no specific victim required | Neger says must defraud a specific person | No specific victim required; intent to defraud the system suffices |
| Is good faith a complete defense to 8-601? | Good faith negates fraudulent intent | Good faith would defeat the charge | Good faith generally negates, but trial court did not find such good faith here. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of intent to defraud the system of recordation? | Evidence shows intent to defraud the system | No proof of intent to defraud a person | Yes; recordation of a materially altered deed constitutes intent to defraud the system. |
| Does the definition of 'counterfeit' apply to material alterations of a deed in this context? | Deed alterations qualify as counterfeit under CR § 8-601 | Question whether alterations meet 'counterfeit' definition | Material alterations of grantor/grantee and forged signature satisfy 'counterfeit'. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reddick v. State, 219 Md. 95 (1959) (intent to defraud may relate to the public or undefined victims; need not name a particular person)
- Ishola v. State, 404 Md. 155 (2008) (clarifies 'another' in similar statutes to avoid fictitious victims)
- Draper v. State, 231 Md. 423 (1963) (proof of intent to defraud need not show actual loss; permissible inferences suffice)
- Bowen v. City of Annapolis, 402 Md. 587 (2007) (statutory interpretation; harmonizing related provisions)
- Pete v. State, 384 Md. 47 (2004) (statutory harmonization and interpretation guidance)