Utah Court of Appeals
What constitutes forgery when filling in blank payee lines on money orders? State v. Barrick Explained
Summary
Defendants found a money order with a blank payee line, filled in one defendant’s name, and cashed it. They entered conditional guilty pleas to attempted forgery while preserving their right to appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
Analysis
In State v. Barrick, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether completing blank fields on a money order constitutes criminal forgery under Utah law.
Background and Facts
The defendants acquired a money order that contained the purchaser’s signature and address but had a blank payee line. One defendant filled in “Amber Barrick” on the blank payee line, endorsed the money order, and cashed it. The purchaser had intended to use the money order to pay a utility bill and did not know either defendant. Defendants were charged with forgery and entered conditional guilty pleas to attempted forgery, preserving their right to appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether filling in a blank payee line constituted forgery under Utah Code section 76-6-501. Defendants argued their actions did not change the legal significance of the instrument and constituted only theft of lost property, not forgery.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied correctness review to the statutory interpretation question. Under Utah Code section 76-6-501(1)(a), forgery occurs when someone “alters any writing of another without his authority.” The court found defendants clearly lacked authority to alter the money order since the purchaser did not know them.
Significantly, the court analyzed the alteration under the Utah Uniform Commercial Code. Initially, the money order was a bearer instrument under section 70A-3-109 because it did not state a payee. By filling in the payee line, defendants converted it to an order instrument payable to an identified person. This conversion changed the instrument’s legal significance and the obligations of the parties involved.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates the intersection between commercial law and criminal law. Practitioners should understand that completing blank fields on negotiable instruments without authorization can constitute forgery even when the instrument remains technically negotiable. The court’s analysis shows that altering the legal character of an instrument—from bearer to order—satisfies the alteration element of forgery statutes.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Barrick
Citation
2002 UT App 120
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20010027-CA
Date Decided
April 18, 2002
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Filling in a blank payee line on a money order without authority constitutes forgery under Utah Code section 76-6-501 by altering the instrument and changing it from a bearer to order instrument.
Standard of Review
Correctness for statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When challenging forgery charges involving incomplete negotiable instruments, analyze both the UCC provisions on bearer versus order instruments and the specific elements of Utah’s forgery statute.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.