People v. Green, 47 N.Y.2d 230 (1979)

To be convicted of criminal possession of a forged instrument, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the instrument was forged at the time of possession.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a forged instrument, finding insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant knew the check was forged when he possessed it. The prosecution demonstrated that the check was stolen unendorsed and later possessed by the defendant with a forged endorsement. However, the prosecution failed to prove the defendant stole the check, how he obtained it, or that the endorsement was not already forged when he acquired it. While evidence supported the defendant’s conviction for petit larceny, the element of knowledge that the instrument was forged was not sufficiently proven, precluding a conviction for criminal possession of a forged instrument.

Facts

A check was stolen from its owner without an endorsement. Six days later, the defendant delivered the check, now bearing a forged endorsement, to an accomplice. The prosecution stipulated that the endorsement was not in the defendant’s handwriting. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting the defendant knew the check was stolen. However, they did not prove the defendant stole the check or how he came into possession of it. The prosecution also failed to prove the endorsement was not already forged when the defendant acquired the check.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted in the trial court of both petit larceny and criminal possession of a forged instrument. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.

Issue(s)

Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the check was forged when he possessed it, an essential element of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument under New York Penal Law § 170.25.

Holding

No, because there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant knew the check was forged at the time he possessed it.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that a key element of criminal possession of a forged instrument is knowing the instrument is forged. While there was evidence that the check was unendorsed when stolen and had a forged endorsement when the defendant possessed it, there was no proof connecting the defendant to the forgery itself or demonstrating his knowledge of the forgery. The court stated, “There was no proof that defendant stole the check from its owner, or of how or where it came into his possession (other than that he must have obtained it prior to his delivery of it to his accomplice). There was no proof as to who had had the check after it was stolen before defendant acquired it or that the indorsement had not already been forged when it came into his hands.” Without this evidence, any finding that the defendant knew the check was forged would be based on speculation, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the evidence sufficient to support the petit larceny conviction, but not the conviction for criminal possession of a forged instrument, thus modifying the order to vacate that conviction.