Mont. Crim. Jury Instr. 6-119(b) (2022)

To convict the Defendant of forgery, the State must prove the following elements:

1. That the Defendant possessed a _________________________, which (he) (she) knew had been made or altered so that it appeared to have been made (by another) (at another time) (with different provisions) (of different composition);

AND

2. That the Defendant had the purpose to issue or deliver the _________________________;

AND

3. That the Defendant then had the purpose to defraud _________________________;

AND

4. That the Defendant acted knowingly;

AND

5. That [the possession of the altered document(s) was part of a common scheme] [the value of any (property (labor) (services) obtained or attempted to be obtained is (greater than $1,500 but less than or equal to $5,000) (greater than $5,000)].

OR

1. That the Defendant possessed any plate, die, or other device, apparatus, equipment, or article specifically designed for use in counterfeiting or otherwise forging written instruments;

AND

2. That the Defendant had knowledge of its character;

AND

3. That the Defendant then had the purpose to defraud _________________________;

AND

4. That the Defendant acted knowingly;

AND

5. That [the possession of the plate, die, or other device, apparatus, equipment or article was part of a common scheme] [the value of any (property) (labor) (services) obtained or attempted to be obtained is (greater than $1,500, but less than or equal to $5,000) (greater than $5,000).]

OR

5. That [the possession of the altered document(s) was part of a common scheme] [value of any (property) (labor) (services) obtained or attempted to be obtained is (greater than $1,500, but less than or equal to $5,000) (greater than $5,000).]

If you find from your consideration of the evidence that all of these elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the Defendant guilty.

If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of the evidence that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt then you should find the Defendant not guilty.