§708-852 Forgery in the second degree.
(1) A person commits the offense of forgery in the second degree if, with
intent to defraud, the person:
(a) Falsely makes, completes, endorses, or alters a
written instrument, or utters a forged instrument, or fraudulently encodes the
magnetic ink character recognition numbers, which is or purports to be, or
which is calculated to become or to represent if completed, a deed, will,
codicil, contract, assignment, commercial instrument, or other instrument which
does or may evidence, create, transfer, terminate, or otherwise affect a legal
right, interest, obligation, or status; or
(b) Falsely makes, completes, endorses, or alters a
written instrument, or utters a forged instrument; and:
(i) The purported maker or drawer of the
written instrument or forged instrument is a person who is sixty years of age
or older; and
(ii) The age of purported maker or drawer of
the written instrument or forged instrument is known or reasonably should be
known to the person who falsely makes, completes, endorses, or alters a written
instrument; or utters a forged instrument.
(2) Forgery in the second degree is a class C
felony. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1988, c 155, §3; gen ch 1992; am L 1997, c
243, §3; am L 2021, c 147, §7]
Case Notes
Charges in indictment held sufficient though inarticulately
drawn. 55 H. 621, 525 P.2d 571 (1974).
There was substantial evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to convict defendant. 79 H. 175 (App.), 900 P.2d 172 (1995).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
38
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case:
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 8× “5(1)(a) (1993) (counts 1-8, 11-17, 19, and 21-25); (2) five counts of theft in the second degree in violation of HRS § 708-831(1)(b) (1993) (counts 9-10, 18, 20, and 26); (3) eleven counts of forgery in the second degree in violation of HRS § 708-852 (1993) (counts 27-37); (4)…”
State v. Garcia., 518 P.3d 1153 (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 12× “1 The State counters that its information tracks the language of the offense, HRS § 708-852. 2 It argues that intent to defraud is an element, understandable to the common person, and gives notice to Garcia of forgery’s state of mind.”
State v. White, 129 P.3d 1107 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 8× “On September 22, 2004, the circuit court commenced a jury trial that ended on September 24, 2004. On September 24, 2004, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged as to all three counts.”
State v. Yokota., 426 P.3d 424 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 5× “HRS § 708-852 (2014) provides in relevant part: Forgery in the second degree.”
Lowther v. U.S. Bank N.A., 971 F. Supp. 2d 989 (D. Haw. 2013).
· cites it 7× “§ 708-852(1); Defendant’s preparation, receipt, and use of the Assignment of the Mortgage and Note; Defendant’s act of recording the Assignment in the BOC; and Defendant’s “knowing use and recordation” of the Assignment, despite the lack of authorization from New Century and the…”
Keawe v. State, 901 P.2d 481 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 4× “88-0060) in violation of HRS § 708-852 (1985). 3 On March 2, 1988, Keawe entered no contest pleas to all of the charges against him in both criminal cases.”
State v. Smith, 81 P.3d 408 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 3× “The prosecution asserted that Smith was eligible for repeat offender sentencing because, inter alia, on or about January 12, 1998, Smith was convicted of three counts of the offense of forgery in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 708-852, a class C felony, and one count…”
State v. Woodfall, 206 P.3d 841 (Haw. 2009).
· cites it 4× “2006), 2 forgery in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 708-852 (Supp.2006), 3 and attempted theft in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 705-500 (1993) 4 and HRS § 708-831(l)(b) (Supp.”
State v. Mason, 900 P.2d 172 (Haw. App. 1995).
· cites it 8× “commercial instrument ... which does ... affect a legal right, interest, [or] obligation.”
State v. Johnson, 711 P.2d 1295 (Haw. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Johnson was indicted for Theft in the First Degree, Hawaii Revised States (HRS) § 708-831(1)(b) [1] and Forgery in the Second Degree, HRS § 708-852. Defendant was convicted by a jury for the lesser included offense of Theft in the Third Degree [2] and for forgery as charged.”
State v. Furutani, 873 P.2d 51 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 2× “1990), 4 one count of forgery in the second degree (Count VI) in violation of HRS § 708-852 (Supp.1992), three counts of failure to report income (Counts VII, VIII, and IX) in violation of HRS § 842-11 (1985), 5 and three counts of “false return” (Counts X, XI, and XII) in…”
Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC., 452 P.3d 371 (Haw. 2019).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 708-852, titled “Forgery in the second degree,” makes forgery of a deed a class C felony.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-852(1) — 6 cases
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
“5(1)(a) (1993) (counts 1-8, 11-17, 19, and 21-25); (2) five counts of theft in the second degree in violation of HRS § 708-831(1)(b) (1993) (counts 9-10, 18, 20, and 26); (3) eleven counts of forgery in the second degree in violation of HRS § 708-852 (1993) (counts 27-37); (4)…”
Lowther v. U.S. Bank N.A., 971 F. Supp. 2d 989 (D. Haw. 2013).
“§ 708-852(1); Defendant’s preparation, receipt, and use of the Assignment of the Mortgage and Note; Defendant’s act of recording the Assignment in the BOC; and Defendant’s “knowing use and recordation” of the Assignment, despite the lack of authorization from New Century and the…”
State v. Mason, 900 P.2d 172 (Haw. App. 1995).
“commercial instrument ... which does ... affect a legal right, interest, [or] obligation.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-852(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Garcia., 518 P.3d 1153 (Haw. 2022).
“1 The State counters that its information tracks the language of the offense, HRS § 708-852. 2 It argues that intent to defraud is an element, understandable to the common person, and gives notice to Garcia of forgery’s state of mind.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-852(l) — 1 case
Lowther v. U.S. Bank N.A., 971 F. Supp. 2d 989 (D. Haw. 2013).
“§ 708-852(1); Defendant’s preparation, receipt, and use of the Assignment of the Mortgage and Note; Defendant’s act of recording the Assignment in the BOC; and Defendant’s “knowing use and recordation” of the Assignment, despite the lack of authorization from New Century and the…”
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.