Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Case Digests / 00-2568 State v. Entringer

00-2568 State v. Entringer

“Forgery cannot be committed by the making of a genuine instrument, although the statements made therein are untrue. The term ‘falsely’ has reference not to the contracts or tenor of the writing, or to the fact stated in the writing, but it implies that the paper or writing is false, not genuine, fictitious, not a true writing, without regard to the truth or falsehood of the statement it contains. …

“In our case, Entringer purchased a $25 money order from the post office. She paid money. The post office in return gave her the money order. At that point the money order was as good as cash. Entringer then made the money order payable to the clerk of court. She listed her mother’s name as the payer. However, the name of the payer had nothing to do with the genuineness of the execution of the money order. As the clerk testified, postal money orders are accepted even if they have no name listed as payer. Naming the payer is mere surplusage, as far as genuineness of execution is concerned. It does not constitute ‘falsely making’ the money order.”

The order dismissing the forged writing charge is affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Door County, Diltz, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Jeffrey J. Kassel, Madison; Timothy W. Funnell, Sturgeon Bay

For Respondent: William E. Schmaal, Madison


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*