AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 stopped by a police officer for operating a vehicle without a license plate light. During the stop, the Defendant presented a photocopy of an insurance card, which the officer suspected was altered. The Defendant admitted that the card might have been altered by his wife and that he knew it was not valid. It was later confirmed that the Defendant did not have insurance at the time of the stop and that the card had been altered (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Trial court: The Defendant was convicted of one count of forged evidence of financial responsibility under Section 66-5-231, one count of operating a motor vehicle without insurance under Section 66-5-205, and one count of operating a motor vehicle without proper equipment under Section 66-3-801. The Defendant's sentence for the forged evidence conviction was enhanced under the habitual offender statute (paras 1, 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him under Section 66-5-231 because he did not personally alter the insurance card, and the statute requires proof of actual forgery by the Defendant (paras 5, 8).
• Respondent (State): Contended that the Defendant violated Section 66-5-231 by knowingly presenting an altered insurance card, which constitutes forgery under the statute (paras 7-8).

Legal Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of violating Section 66-5-231?
• Does the term "forges" in Section 66-5-231 require proof that the Defendant personally altered the document?

Disposition

• The conviction under Section 66-5-231 was reversed due to insufficient evidence (paras 2, 15-16).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Donnelly and Apodaca JJ. concurring):

• The court analyzed the meaning of "forges" in Section 66-5-231 and determined that it should be interpreted using its common law definition, which requires proof that the Defendant personally altered the document (paras 6-13).
• The court reviewed the statutory history of Section 66-5-231 and found no indication that the legislature intended to adopt the broader definition of forgery found in the general forgery statute (paras 9-13).
• Applying the common law definition, the court concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that the Defendant personally altered the insurance card. The Defendant's act of presenting the altered card, knowing it was invalid, did not meet the statutory requirement of "forging" under Section 66-5-231 (paras 14-15).
• As a result, the conviction under Section 66-5-231 was reversed (para 16).