Instruction 8.160, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court

FORGERY

G.L. c. 267, §§ 1-8

The defendant is charged with forgery of a (check or order

for money) (promissory note) (order for property) 1. To prove the

defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove

three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the defendant (falsified one or more significant

parts of the document in question) (altered one or more

significant parts of the document in question) (counterfeited the

document in question to make it appear to be genuine);

Second: That the document was or appeared to be a (check

or order for money) (promissory note) (order for property)2; and

Third: That the defendant did so with an intent to injure or

to defraud.

To prove the first element, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (falsified)

(altered) (counterfeited) a document. It is the document itself –

not its contents – that must have been (falsified) (altered)

1 The District Court also has jurisdiction over the forgery of other documents. See note 1. This

instruction may be adapted accordingly.

2 See n. 1, supra.

(counterfeited). The offense of forgery relates to the

genuineness of the document itself, rather than the truth of its

contents. A document that contains false statements is not a

forged document just because the statements contained in it are

false. On the other hand, a document can be forged even if

some or all of the statements in it are true.

Falsely Made

To prove the document was falsely made, the

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one

or more essential parts of the document were not genuine. [An

example would be where a person forged another person’s

signature on a stock certificate.]

Altered

To prove the document was altered, the Commonwealth

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more parts of

a genuine document were changed in a way that had

significance. [An example would be where a person changed a

dollar amount, an important date, or a name.]

Commonwealth v. Segee, 218 Mass. 501, 504 (1914) (“The offense of forgery

may consist in the alteration in a material part of a valid document by which

another may be defrauded.”)

Counterfeit

To prove the document was counterfeit, the Commonwealth

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the document –

even if appearing to be genuine -- was not. [An example would

be where a person created stock certificates either for a

company that actually existed or for one that did not exist at all.]

To prove the second element, the Commonwealth must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the document in question

was or appeared to be a (check or order for money) (promissory

note) (order for property).

To prove the third element, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the

specific intention of defrauding another. It is not necessary that

the defendant intended to injure or defraud a particular person

or entity. To act with an intent to defraud means to act

knowingly with the aim of deceiving or cheating another. The

purpose is often to bring about gain or benefit either to oneself

or to another person or entity. You may examine the evidence

in the case, all of the surrounding circumstances, and any

reasonable inferences you draw from that evidence, to help you

determine whether the defendant intended to defraud another.

The defendant need not have an intent to injure or defraud a particular person. An

intent to defraud anyone is sufficient. Commonwealth v. Analetto, 326 Mass. 115,

118 (1950). See United States v. Leahy, 445 F.3d 634, 644 (3d Cir. 2006)

(instruction on intent to defraud); United States v. Phath, 144 F.3d 146, 149 (1st

Cir. 1998) (same).

Commonwealth v. O’Connell, 438 Mass. 658, 664 n.9 (2003) (elements of

forgery); Commonwealth v. Apalakis, 396 Mass. 292, 300 (1985); Commonwealth

v. Segee, 218 Mass. 501, 504 (1914); Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 11 Gray 197,

198 (1858).