(1) A person is guilty of forgery in the second degree when, with intent to defraud,
deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument,
or in the commission of a human trafficking offense as described in KRS 529.100
or 529.110, coerces another person to falsely make, complete, or alter a written
instrument, which is or purports to be or which is calculated to become or to
represent when completed:
(a) A deed, will, codicil, contract, assignment, commercial instrument, credit card
or other instrument which does or may evidence, create, transfer, terminate or
otherwise affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status; or
(b) A public record or an instrument filed or required or authorized by law to be
filed in or with a public office or public employee; or
(c) A written instrument officially issued or created by a public office, public
employee or governmental agency.
(2) Forgery in the second degree is a Class D felony.
Effective: June 25, 2013
History: Amended 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 25, sec. 26, effective June 25, 2013. -- 1974 Ky.
Acts ch. 406, sec. 134, effective January 1, 1975.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case:
Smith v. Peyman, 93 F. Supp. 3d 738 (E.D. Ky. 2015).
Smith v. Peyman, 93 F. Supp. 3d 738 (E.D. Ky. 2015).
· cites it 5× “050), forgery (KRS § 516.030), criminal facilitation (KRS § 506.”
Commonwealth v. Hughes, 986 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2d 571, 571-72 (1974), equating check with commercial instrument; forging commercial instrument is felony of lesser degree); Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 516.030 (1974) (cited by Jones v.”
Radford v. Lovelace, 212 S.W.3d 72 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 2× “36(7)(a), from an order of the Court of Appeals denying his petition for writ of prohibition to prevent his retrial on charges of one (1) count of forgery in the second degree in violation of KRS 516.030 and three (3) counts of theft by failure to make required *75 disposition…”
Robertson v. Commonwealth, 597 S.W.2d 864 (Ky. 1980).
“Bernard Robertson was tried and convicted of second degree forgery, KRS 516.030, and attempt at committing theft by deception, KRS 514.”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 709 S.W.2d 838 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “2d 423 (1981), the court specifically held that “an endorsement falls within the categories of instruments specified in KRS 516.030.” Frazier , at 426. Under KRS 516.”
Jones v. Commonwealth, 662 S.W.2d 483 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983).
“We reject the appellant’s argument and agree with the trial court and with the official commentary (1974) to the statute, which states: KRS 516.030 prohibits the forgery of ....”
Clark v. Commonwealth, 476 S.W.3d 895 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).
“08-CR-00236, he was charged with ten counts of second-degree forgery pursuant to KRS 516.030 for forging checks on his wife,' Shawna Clark’s, account between February 16, 2008, and February 21, 2008.”
Hellard v. Commonwealth, 829 S.W.2d 427 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “040, and one count of forgery in the second degree under KRS 516.030. Hellard was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for each offense, with said sentences to run concurrently.”
Frazier v. Commonwealth, 613 S.W.2d 423 (Ky. 1981).
· cites it 2× “KRS 516.030. The false writing possessed by Darnell was a two-word signature written on the reverse side of the U.”
Com. of Ky. v. Ford, 543 S.W.3d 579 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “130 (now KRS 516.030 and KRS 516.060 ). Count 1: That on or about the 10 th day of January, 1974, in Daviess County, Kentucky, the above named defendant uttered a $100.”
Harrison v. Commonwealth, 559 S.W.2d 744 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).
“This statute reads as follows: A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he utters or possesses any forged instrument of a kind specified in…”
Staub v. Nietzel (W.D. Ky. 2022).
· cites it 5× “Yet while Staub’s evidence does not completely rule out the possibility that Nietzel forged a chain-of-custody form “with intent to defraud, deceive or injure” him, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 516.030, facts that suggest the “mere possibility of misconduct” are not even sufficient to state…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 516.030(1) — 2 cases
Smith v. Peyman, 93 F. Supp. 3d 738 (E.D. Ky. 2015).
“050), forgery (KRS § 516.030), criminal facilitation (KRS § 506.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 516.030(1)(c) — 1 case
Staub v. Nietzel (W.D. Ky. 2022).
“Yet while Staub’s evidence does not completely rule out the possibility that Nietzel forged a chain-of-custody form “with intent to defraud, deceive or injure” him, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 516.030, facts that suggest the “mere possibility of misconduct” are not even sufficient to state…”
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.