State v. Vasquez, 178 Wash. 2d 1

Background

Vianney Vasquez was stopped for shoplifting at a Safeway; during a security pat-down a guard found a Social Security card and a permanent resident card in Vasquez’s wallet.
Vasquez could not recite the Social Security number, told the guard the cards were his, and said he had bought them from a friend in California for $50 each.
Federal witnesses testified the Social Security number and immigration databases showed no record of issuance and that the resident card lacked authentic security features.
Vasquez was charged with two counts of forgery under RCW 9A.60.020(1)(b) (possession of a forged instrument with intent to injure or defraud); he was convicted by a jury and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Washington Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the evidence supported an inference of intent to injure or defraud.
The Supreme Court reversed: it held the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to injure or defraud beyond a reasonable doubt, and vacated the forgery convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether possession of forged ID permits an inference of intent to injure or defraud under RCW 9A.60.020(1)(b)	State: possession plus circumstances permits a reasonable inference of intent (why else possess forged IDs)	Vasquez: mere possession (and equivocal statements) is insufficient; State must prove intent beyond reasonable doubt	Held: Mere possession is insufficient; State must present evidence beyond naked possession to prove intent to injure or defraud
Whether equivocal statements by the defendant supported intent to defraud the security guard	State: Vasquez admitted ownership and may have attempted to pass them off	Vasquez: his answers were ambiguous and language barriers made intent unclear	Held: Statements were patently equivocal and cannot support an inference of intent
Whether suggestion that Vasquez worked supported inference he intended to use the IDs to obtain employment	State: jury could infer intent to defraud an employer from comment about working	Vasquez: minimal, uncertain testimony and form indicating he was not employed undermine that inference	Held: Evidence that he worked or used the cards for employment was lacking; speculation is insufficient
Appropriate standard of review for intent findings on sufficiency challenges	State/Court of Appeals applied "substantial evidence"/reasonable inferences standard	Vasquez: intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson standard	Held: Courts must apply the Jackson standard (viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution and require proof beyond reasonable doubt); substantial-evidence framing is incorrect

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bencivenga, 137 Wn.2d 703 (discussing sufficiency review standard)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency: proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d 1 (intent cannot be inferred from patently equivocal evidence)
State v. Woods, 63 Wn. App. 588 (intent may be inferred only where circumstances indicate it as a matter of logical probability)
State v. Esquivel, 71 Wn. App. 868 (possession plus presentation of forged ID supported intent)
State v. Ramirez Tinajero, 154 Wn. App. 745 (use/presentation of forged ID to obtain employment supports intent)
State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311 (mere knowledge of an item's use in crime does not permit inference of intent without more)
People v. Bailey, 13 N.Y.3d 67 (possession of counterfeit bills during arrest does not alone prove intent to defraud)
People v. Brunson, 66 A.D.3d 594 (possession of altered ID without conduct showing use did not prove intent)
Velasquez v. State, 276 Ga. App. 527 (forged ID found only after arrest insufficient to prove intent)
People v. Miralda, 981 P.2d 676 (possession of forged immigration documents without evidence of use insufficient to prove intent)