Background
Connie Kay Watkins received several bills resembling $100 currency and used one at a Dollar General in Lake Havasu City. The cashier accepted the bill, giving Watkins $41.63 in merchandise and $58.37 in change. The bill repeatedly stated that it was for motion-picture purposes and was not legal tender, but it also displayed a $100 denomination and currency-like features.
About four hours later, Watkins returned and presented another bill of the same type. The cashier recognized it, refused the transaction, and contacted police. A jury convicted Watkins of two forgery counts; the superior court imposed concurrent mitigated one-year prison terms and ordered $100 restitution.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Arizona’s forgery statute covers a person who, with intent to defraud, presents either a forged instrument or an instrument containing false information, whether or not it is accepted. The court held that the prop bills contained false information because their printed $100 denomination and currency-like identifiers falsely communicated that they had that monetary value.
The bills’ accurate prop-money disclaimers did not eliminate the false information elsewhere on them. The court therefore did not decide whether the bills also qualified as “forged instruments.” Substantial evidence also supported the jury’s finding of intent to defraud, including Watkins’ repeat use of similar bills, her experience handling currency at a credit union, and her conduct after the cashier rejected the second bill.
Key Takeaways
- Under A.R.S. § 13-2002(A)(3), an instrument may support forgery liability if it contains false information, even if it is not proved to be a forged instrument.
- Prop-money disclaimers do not, as a matter of law, negate other false representations on a bill, including a false $100 denomination.
- Forgery may be complete when a bill is offered or presented with fraudulent intent, even if the recipient rejects it.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Arizona’s forgery statute to prop currency that visibly identifies itself as non-legal tender but is presented as payment. It emphasizes that the statutory false-information alternative has independent force and that the jury may infer fraudulent intent from circumstantial evidence.