Instruction 8.700, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court

FALSE STATEMENT TO PROCURE A CREDIT CARD

G.L. c. 266, § 37B(a)

The defendant is charged with (making a false statement)

(causing a false statement to be made) to obtain a credit card. To

prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must

prove six things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant made (caused to be made) a written

statement;

Second, that the statement was related to a material fact about

the identity or financial condition of (the defendant) (another person);

Third, that the statement was false;

Fourth, that the defendant knew the statement was false when

made;

Fifth, that the defendant intended that the false statement be

relied upon for the purpose of obtaining of a credit card; and,

Sixth, that the defendant made the false statement with the

intent to defraud.

To prove the first element, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made a written

statement or that the defendant caused a written statement to be

made by some other means. A statement may be written physically

as when one uses a pen or pencil or electronic device.

To prove the second element, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement contained material

information about the identity or financial condition of the defendant

or some other person. Something is material when it is important to

accomplishing the goal for which it was created or used.

To prove the third element, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was false when it was

made. Something is false when it is not true or genuine.

To prove the fourth element, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the statement

was false when it was made. This requires you to make a decision

about the defendant’s state of mind at that time. It is not enough to

prove that a prudent person would have known or believed that the

statement was false. The Commonwealth must prove the defendant

actually knew, or at least believed, that it was. You may examine any

evidence regarding the defendant’s actions or words, all of the

surrounding circumstances, and any reasonable inferences you draw

from that evidence to help you determine whether the defendant knew

the statement was false when it was made.

To prove the fifth element, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended that the false

representation be relied upon by another person or entity to obtain a

credit card. A credit card is a device that enables the cardholder to

obtain money, services, or things on credit without immediate

payment or by debit from a cash account.1

To prove the sixth element, the Commonwealth must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made the statement

with the intent to defraud. 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 for oneself or for

1 Section 1 of G.L. c. 266, § 37, provides a more expansive definition of a credit card than the one

provided in this instruction: A credit card is “an instrument or device, whether known as a credit card,

credit plate or other name, or the code of number used to identify that instrument or device or an

account of credit or cash accessed by that instrument or device, issued with or without a fee by an

issuer for the use of the cardholder in obtaining money, goods, services or anything else of value on

credit or by debit from a cash account.”

another person or entity.2 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 had an intent to defraud.

See Commonwealth v. O’Connell, 438 Mass. 658, 664 (2003) (Commonwealth need not

show intent to defraud particular person, but sufficient that defendant “intended to injure or

defraud someone”; proof of intent to defraud may be inferred from the circumstances);

Commonwealth v. Segee, 218 Mass. 501, 504 (1914) (“The false making or alteration with

intent to defraud is the gist of the offense.”)

If the Commonwealth has proven all six elements beyond a

reasonable doubt, you should return a verdict of guilty. If the

Commonwealth has failed to prove one or more of these elements

beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.

2 See United States v. Phath, 144 F.3d 146, 149 (1st Cir. 1998); United States v. Leahy, 445 F.3d

634, 644 (3d Cir. 2006).