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 involved in two separate incidents where she presented altered bingo cards at blackout bingo games in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1994 and 1995. In both cases, the cards were altered to show duplicate numbers, enabling her to falsely claim a $1,000 prize. The alterations were discovered, and her cards were disqualified. She was subsequently barred from playing at the respective venues (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Chaves County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of forgery after her motion to sever the charges into separate trials was denied.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to sever the two forgery counts into separate trials, claiming prejudice from the joinder. She also contended that a bingo card lacks the legal efficacy required under the forgery statute (paras 1, 6, 12).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the joinder of the two counts was proper as the offenses were of similar character and evidence of each incident would have been admissible in separate trials to prove intent and knowledge. The State also argued that bingo cards create a legally enforceable obligation, satisfying the forgery statute's requirements (paras 4, 9, 15).
Legal Issues
- Was the trial court correct in denying the Defendant's motion to sever the two forgery counts into separate trials?
- Does a bingo card have the legal efficacy required to fall under the forgery statute?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on both issues (para 17).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Pickard and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
Motion to Sever: The Court held that the joinder of the two forgery counts was proper because the offenses were of similar character, involving altered bingo cards presented in similar circumstances. Evidence of each incident would have been admissible in separate trials to prove intent and knowledge under Rule 11-404(B). The Defendant's stipulation not to rely on mistake or accident as a defense did not negate the relevance of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever (paras 4-11).
Legal Efficacy of Bingo Cards: The Court determined that bingo cards have legal efficacy under the forgery statute because they create a legally enforceable obligation for game operators to pay prizes to the holder of a winning card. The forgery statute applies even if the forgery is detected before any money changes hands. The Defendant's argument that verification of the card negates its legal efficacy was rejected (paras 12-16).