 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ray11/22/1999
Reporter of Decisions
Submitted on Briefs: October 14, 1999
Bradley J. Ray appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury-waived trial (Penobscot County, Mead, J.) for aggravated forgery, which arose out of his arrest for operating under the influence. On appeal, Ray contends that the Superior Court erred as a matter of law when it found that Ray committed aggravated forgery as defined by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 702 (1983 & Supp. 1998) by signing a false name on a Uniform Summons and Complaint. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated to the following facts. On December 31, 1997, Ray was stopped for speeding by a Dexter police officer. Rather than giving his real name, Ray told the officer that he was "Kenneth Deschaine" of Waterville. The officer smelled alcohol on Ray's breath and administered field-sobriety tests, which Ray failed. Accordingly, Ray was arrested. Following a breath test, which disclosed a .09% blood alcohol level, the officer issued a Uniform Summons and Complaint using the information supplied by Ray (i.e., that his name was Kenneth Deschaine). The Complaint contained the date of arraignment on the charges. Ray falsely signed that document "Kenneth Deschaine," and the officer gave Ray a copy of the Complaint and released him. The Complaint was then filed in the Newport District Court Clerk's Office. When no one appeared for arraignment, an arrest warrant was issued for Deschaine. Subsequently, the original arresting officer discovered Ray's true identity, and the charge against Deschaine was dismissed. Ray was arrested and charged with operating under the influence, as well as other charges related to the original traffic stop, and with the new charge of aggravated forgery.
Ray waived a jury trial on the aggravated forgery charge and pled guilty to all other charges. He stipulated to the facts relevant to the aggravated forgery charge and moved for a judgment of acquittal on that charge. Following argument from the parties, the court denied the motion for a judgment of acquittal and found Ray guilty of aggravated forgery. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Ray contends that the trial court erred when it found that, by signing a false name to the Complaint, he had committed aggravated forgery under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 702. The State argues that the plain meaning of "endorse," undefined in the statute, includes the defendant's conduct.
Pursuant to section 702,
person is guilty of aggravated forgery if, with intent to defraud or deceive another person or government, he falsely makes, completes, endorses or alters a written instrument . . . and the instrument is . . . public record or an instrument filed or required or authorized by law to be filed in or with a public office or public employee .
17-A M.R.S.A. § 702(1)(D). "Written instrument" is defined to "include any token, coin, stamp, seal, badge, trademark, credit card, absentee ballot application, absentee ballot envelope, or other evidence or symbol of value, right, privilege or identification, and any paper, document or other written instrument containing written or printed matter or its equivalent." 17-A M.R.S.A. § 701(4) (1983). The statute defines the terms "falsely alters," "falsely completes," and "falsely makes," see 17-A M.R.S.A. § 701(1)-(3) (1983), but does not explicitly define "falsely endorses."
Ray concedes that the Uniform Summons and Complaint is a "public record or an instrument required or authorized to be filed in or with a public office or public employee." 17-A M.R.S.A. § 702(1)(D). The State did not argue that Ray made, completed, or
Page 1 2 3 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|