Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-138 (2025)
Forgery in the first degree: Class C felony
✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A person is guilty of forgery in the first degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument or issues or possesses any written instrument which he knows to be forged, which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or represent if completed: (1) Part of an issue of money, stamps, securities or other valuable instruments issued by a government or governmental instrumentality; or (2) part of an issue of stock, bonds or other instruments representing interests in or claims against a corporate or other organization or its property.
(b) Forgery in the first degree is a class C felony.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 140; P.A. 76-292, S. 1.)
History: P.A. 76-292 made first degree forgery a Class C, rather than a Class D, felony.
Cited. 11 CA 161; 37 CA 72; 47 CA 1.
Cited. 34 CS 606.
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1974–2017 · leading case: Lauder v. Peck, 526 A.2d 539 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987).
Lauder v. Peck, 526 A.2d 539 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). “) The term “falsely makes” is defined in General Statutes § 53a-137 (4); see footnote 1, supra; for purposes of General Statutes §§ 53a-138 through 53a-145, entitled “Forgery And Related Offenses.”
State v. Caballero, 160 A.3d 1103 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “On July 29, 2013, the state filed a short form information charging the defendant with one count of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-123 and one count of forgery in the first degree in violation of § 53a-138. On December 18, 2013, the defendant…”
State v. Radzvilowicz, 703 A.2d 767 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). “Jurisdiction for any violation of our forgery statute in General Statutes § 53a-138 et seq. is specifically within the *37 jurisdiction of our Superior Court.”
Colon v. Comm'r of Corr., 177 A.3d 1162 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “Specifically, the petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101(a)(1), two counts of conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-101(a)(1), two counts of…”
Trevor Drakes v. Charles W. Zimski, 240 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2001). “See Conn.Gen.Stat. § 53a-138 (1999); N.Y.Penal Law § 170.”
State v. Yurch, 654 A.2d 1246 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). “” See General Statutes §§ 53a-138, 53a-139 and 53a-140.”
Chaparro v. Comm'r of Corr., 990 A.2d 1261 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). “On January 25, 2006, while the petitioner was confined, he was subsequently arrested and charged with larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-123, criminal impersonation in violation of General Statutes § 53a-130 and forgery in the first degree in…”
Mulero v. Connecticut, 253 F.R.D. 33 (D. Conn. 2008). “Ultimately, he was charged with forgery under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 53a-138. Mulero was found guilty by a jury on September 19, 2003, of forgery in the second degree.”
Szarwak v. Warden of Connecticut Corr. Inst., 320 A.2d 12 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1974). “are such crimes as assault in the second degree, which covers, inter alia, assaults with a dangerous weapon; § 53a-60; burglary in the third degree, which covers breaking and entering a building with criminal intent; § 53a-103; larceny in the second degree, which includes theft…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-138(a)(1): 1 case
State v. Caballero, 160 A.3d 1103 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “On July 29, 2013, the state filed a short form information charging the defendant with one count of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-123 and one count of forgery in the first degree in violation of § 53a-138. On December 18, 2013, the defendant…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.