People v. Rodriguez, 17 N.Y.3d 486 (2011)
Intent to defraud, deceive, or injure in criminal possession of a forged instrument can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, even without use or attempted use of the instrument.
Summary
Isidro Rodriguez was convicted of criminal possession of a forged instrument after police found multiple forged identification documents on his person during an arrest. The documents, bearing his photograph but under a false name, were discovered alongside his real identification. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed for the jury to infer the requisite intent to defraud, deceive, or injure, despite the absence of direct evidence of intended use. The Court distinguished this case from prior holdings, emphasizing the importance of surrounding circumstances.
Facts
Detective Goetz interviewed a complainant who identified Devine Perez as a suspect. Goetz contacted someone identifying himself as Devine Perez who claimed to be out of state. Later, Goetz located Rodriguez, who matched a photograph provided by the complainant, and arrested him. A search incident to arrest revealed forged identification documents (driver’s license, non-driver ID, Social Security card, and green card) bearing Rodriguez’s photograph but under the name “Louis Amadou.” Rodriguez also possessed his genuine identification documents and loose ID-sized photographs of himself. He was wearing a jacket that appeared in the photographs.
Procedural History
Rodriguez was convicted in a jury trial of four counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether there was legally sufficient evidence for a rational jury to infer that Rodriguez possessed the forged documents with the intent to defraud, deceive, or injure another, as required for a conviction of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree under Penal Law § 170.25.
Holding
Yes, because the totality of the circumstances provided a sufficient basis for the jury to infer that Rodriguez acted with the requisite intent to defraud, deceive, or injure.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court stated that evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction where “ ‘there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial’ ” (People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 409 [2004]).
The Court distinguished the case from People v. Bailey, where mere possession of forged bills was insufficient to prove intent. Here, the Court found several factors indicating intent:
- Rodriguez had a motive to assume a false identity because he was aware that the police were searching for him.
- Three of the four forged documents bore Rodriguez’s photograph, suggesting his active involvement in creating the false documents.
- Rodriguez was wearing the same jacket as in the photographs found with the forged documents, allowing the jury to infer his recent involvement in their production.
- Rodriguez carried the false documents separately from his real identification, suggesting he wanted to easily produce either set as needed.
- Rodriguez sent a letter to the court requesting to plead guilty, which the jury could interpret as an admission of intent.
The Court emphasized that Penal Law § 170.25 does not require use or attempted use of the forged instrument, nor does it require that the contemplated use be imminent. The Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence established more than mere knowing possession, providing a solid basis for the jury to infer the requisite intent to defraud, deceive, or injure.