Simply cashing a check with a forged signature not enough proof somebody was uttering, court rules

The Massachusetts Appeals Court today overturned a woman's conviction for uttering - the legal term for passing a forged check - because while she was on video cashing a $950 check with a forged signature from the account of a woman she didn't know, prosecutors failed to prove she knew the check was, in fact, forged.

Middlesex County prosecutors had argued that the mere fact of her cashing the check at a Citizens Bank branch at the Stop & Shop on Rte. 9 in Natick was proof enough that she had engaged in uttering. At a jury-waived trial in Natick District Court, Judge David Cunis agreed and sentenced Rachelle Scordino to 18 months of probation and ordered her to repay the $950.

But in its ruling today, the appeals court said that was not good enough to establish guilt because the state uttering law requires prosecutors to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person facing the charge not only passed a forged check but knew it was forged and had the intent to defraud somebody by cashing it:

There was no evidence linking the defendant to Adams's home or to any other unauthorized use of Adams's checks. There was no evidence that the defendant was in possession of Adams's checkbook at any point in time, or that she had any access to it. In fact, the Commonwealth presented no evidence as to how the defendant obtained the check. And, despite the fact that several checks were missing, there was no evidence that the defendant attempted to cash or did cash any other checks. There was also no evidence that the check the defendant did cash was altered in any way. On the contrary, from all appearances, the check was written out to the defendant from Adams's account and bore a signature that at least arguably looked like that of Adams. There was no evidence that the defendant signed the check.

Nor was there any evidence of consciousness of guilt. The defendant's conduct at the bank was normal, offering little more than a typical bank transaction. There was no evidence that the defendant attempted to conceal her identity, alter her appearance, or assume the identity of another while cashing the check. She did not try to cash the check at a bank where she was not a customer. And, the defendant did not make any admissions that she knew the check was fraudulent.

And so the court reversed her guilty finding, because:

For evidence to be sufficient to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt it must be sufficiently probative to demonstrate the truth of the proposition with the requisite degree of certainty. Given the not uncommon circumstances in which a person may be given a check drawn on a third party's account, we do not think the inference of intent to defraud or of knowledge of forgery from cashing such a check is sufficiently strong, that, standing alone, cashing such a check can support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to those elements of uttering.

Briefs by both sides and audio of oral arguments in the case.