AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was arrested and charged with forgery after attempting to use two counterfeit ten dollar bills to pay for items at a gas station. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that the counterfeit bills did not meet the legal definition of forgery because they did not have legal efficacy (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Colfax County: The court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the forgery charge, concluding that attempting to use counterfeit bills could constitute forgery (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that money is not a "writing" under the law, and therefore, using counterfeit money cannot constitute forgery. The Defendant contended that the counterfeit bills did not have legal efficacy and thus could not be the basis for a forgery charge (paras 2, 5-7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the case could be more appropriately charged under a different subsection of the forgery statute but maintained that U.S. currency has legal efficacy. Therefore, attempting to pass counterfeit money constituted forgery under the statute (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether using counterfeit money to buy goods constitutes forgery under NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-10(A)(2) (2006) (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that attempting to use counterfeit bills can constitute forgery pursuant to Section 30-16-10(A)(2) (para 10).

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation, with HANISEE, Judge, and MEDINA, Judge, concurring: The Court conducted a de novo review of the statutory interpretation of New Mexico’s forgery statute, focusing on whether counterfeit money could be considered a "forged writing" with intent to injure or defraud. The Court relied on precedent from State v. Scott, which interpreted the statute to mean that a "forged writing" must purport to have legal efficacy. Since counterfeit money purports to have legal efficacy, it can be considered a forged writing under the statute. The Defendant's argument that money cannot constitute a writing was not persuasive in light of this interpretation. The Court also noted that the Defendant did not address the holding in Scott or provide any argument for its overturning. Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that counterfeit bills are instruments purporting to have legal efficacy and thus can be the basis of a forgery charge pursuant to Section 30-16-10(B) (paras 5-9).