Commonwealth v. Nelson

Winchester County Circuit Court

Commonwealth v. Nelson

50 Va. Cir. 330, 1999 Va. Cir. LEXIS 436

CourtWinchester County Circuit Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1999

DocketCase No. (Criminal) No. 98-184

StatusPublished

This text of 50 Va. Cir. 330 (Commonwealth v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Winchester County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Nelson, 50 Va. Cir. 330, 1999 Va. Cir. LEXIS 436 (Va. Super. Ct. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

BY JUDGE JOHN E. WETSEL, JR.

I have considered the defendant’s motion for an acquittal of the forgery charge and the authorities submitted in support of that motion. Upon consideration, I have decided to grant the defendant’s motion.

Forgery is a common law crime. Also there is a penal statute, and, like all penal statutes, it must be strictly construed against the Commonwealth and applied only in those cases clearly falling within the language and intent of the statute. Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240, 511 S.E.2d 429 (1999).

Not all forged documents give rise to potential criminal prosecution. For example, a forged school absence excuse or a love letter cannot be the premise for a forgery prosecution. In Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia, p. 240 (4th ed. 1998), the author discusses the character of the document upon which forgery prosecutions may be based and states:

To determine if a writing is one “to the prejudice of another” its character must first be examined. Only a writing which purports to create or avoid some [legal] liability qualifies. Thus a false letter of introduction cannot be a forgery because it does not obligate anyone.

Referring to Foulkes v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. (2 Rob.) 836 (1843). (Emphasis added.)

Since a letter of introduction cannot be a premise for forgery, because it does not obligate anyone, by similar logic, a letter transmitting a contract [331]*331cannot be the subject of a forgery indictment, because it creates no liability. The requirement that the writing allegedly forged create or avoid a legal liability is the reason that so many forgery statutes have been promulgated making it a crime to forge certain documents which otherwise would not be a premise for forgery. See, e.g. Virginia Code § 18.2-162 (forgery of public records); and Virginia Code § 24.2-1012 (forgery in voting).

Not all chicanery is punishable criminally, and that is the reason that there are civil remedies afforded to individuals who may be injured by the fraud or deceit of some person and the attendant potential for punitive damages. For the foregoing reasons, I am granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the forgery indictment, Winchester Criminal Docket No. 184.

Counsel for the defendant is directed to prepare an order dismissing the indictment on the merits with prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BY JUDGE JOHN E. WETSEL, JR.

I have considered the defendant’s motion for an acquittal of the forgery charge and the authorities submitted in support of that motion. Upon consideration, I have decided to grant the defendant’s motion.

Forgery is a common law crime. Also there is a penal statute, and, like all penal statutes, it must be strictly construed against the Commonwealth and applied only in those cases clearly falling within the language and intent of the statute. Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240, 511 S.E.2d 429 (1999).

Not all forged documents give rise to potential criminal prosecution. For example, a forged school absence excuse or a love letter cannot be the premise for a forgery prosecution. In Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia, p. 240 (4th ed. 1998), the author discusses the character of the document upon which forgery prosecutions may be based and states:

To determine if a writing is one “to the prejudice of another” its character must first be examined. Only a writing which purports to create or avoid some [legal] liability qualifies. Thus a false letter of introduction cannot be a forgery because it does not obligate anyone.

Referring to Foulkes v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. (2 Rob.) 836 (1843). (Emphasis added.)

Since a letter of introduction cannot be a premise for forgery, because it does not obligate anyone, by similar logic, a letter transmitting a contract [331]*331cannot be the subject of a forgery indictment, because it creates no liability. The requirement that the writing allegedly forged create or avoid a legal liability is the reason that so many forgery statutes have been promulgated making it a crime to forge certain documents which otherwise would not be a premise for forgery. See, e.g. Virginia Code § 18.2-162 (forgery of public records); and Virginia Code § 24.2-1012 (forgery in voting).

Not all chicanery is punishable criminally, and that is the reason that there are civil remedies afforded to individuals who may be injured by the fraud or deceit of some person and the attendant potential for punitive damages. For the foregoing reasons, I am granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the forgery indictment, Winchester Criminal Docket No. 184.

Counsel for the defendant is directed to prepare an order dismissing the indictment on the merits with prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Va. Cir. 330, 1999 Va. Cir. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-nelson-vaccwinchester-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack