Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 831.09 (2025)

Uttering forged bills, checks, drafts, or notes.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

831.09 Uttering forged bills, checks, drafts, or notes.—Whoever utters or passes or tenders in payment as true, any such false, altered, forged, or counterfeit note, or any bank bill, check, draft, or promissory note, payable to the bearer thereof or to the order of any person, issued as aforesaid, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to injure or defraud any person, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—s. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2487; GS 3368; RGS 5216; CGL 7334; s. 966, ch. 71-136; s. 10, ch. 2001-115.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 831.09

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§831.09FRAUDUTTER FALSE BANK BILL/NOTE/CHECK/DRAFTF · 3rd

§831.09PASS COUNTERFEITEDPASS CTFT BANK BILL/NOTE/CHECK/DRAFTF · 3rd

§831.09PASS FORGEDPASS FORGED BANK BILL/NOTE/CHECK/DRAFTF · 3rd

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1978–2009 · leading case: Burke v. State, 475 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burke v. State, 475 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). · cites it 4× “The defendant was convicted of three counts of uttering a forged bill (§ 831.09, Fla. Stat.). THE ISSUE: Does the defendant's three convictions violate constitutional double joepardy (Art.”

Grant v. State, 13 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). · cites it 2× “Ashley Ellen Grant appeals her conviction for uttering an altered check in violation of section 831.09, Florida Statutes (2007). She contends her motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the evidence that she knew the check had been altered and that she…”

State v. Davis, 358 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). · cites it 7× “By this appeal the state seeks to have this court determine the propriety of a ruling that the alteration of the numbers of a Federal Reserve note and the subsequent attempt to spend the same as a note of a higher denomination does not constitute an offense under Section 831.09,…”

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.