Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:72 (2026)

Forgery

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§72. Forgery

A. It shall be unlawful to forge, with intent to defraud, any signature to, or any part of, any writing purporting to have legal efficacy.

B. Issuing, transferring, or possessing with intent to defraud, a forged writing, known by the offender to be a forged writing, shall also constitute a violation of the provisions of this Section.

C. For purposes of this Section:

(1) "Forge" means the following:

(a) To alter, make, complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports:

(i) To be the act of another who did not authorize that act;

(ii) To have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case; or

(iii) To be a copy of an original when no such original existed.

(b) To issue, transfer, register the transfer of, pass, publish, or otherwise utter a writing that is forged in accordance with the meaning of Subparagraph (1)(a).

(2) "Writing" means the following:

(a) Printing or any other method of recording information;

(b) Money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, and trademarks; and

D. Whoever commits the crime of forgery shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years, or both.

Acts 2001, No. 922, §1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 240 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: State v. Raymo, 419 So. 2d 858 (La. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Raymo, 419 So. 2d 858 (La. 1982). · cites it 5× “R.S. 14:72. An "intent to defraud" is an essential element of forgery under either definition.”

Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980). · cites it 2× “130 1962) (2 to 10 years); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:72 (West 1974) (fine or up to 10 years' hard labor); Me.”

Williams v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. of West Feliciana Par., 250 F. Supp. 3d 90 (M.D. La. 2017). · cites it 9× “Plaintiff, however, “fails to make á showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [her] case, and on which [she] will bear the burden of proof at trial,” regarding the claims in which she asserts that Defendants violated the state laws prohibiting…”

State v. Doughty, 379 So. 2d 1088 (La. 1980). · cites it 4× “R.S. 14:72 and 14:67. Following trial before a judge, defendant was found guilty as charged on each count.”

State v. Spooner, 550 So. 2d 1289 (La. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “Emmett Spooner was charged by indictment with forgery, in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:72. He pled not guilty and, after trial by jury, was found guilty of attempted forgery.”

State v. Clifton, 248 So. 3d 691 (La. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “R.S. 14:72, the defendant filed a motion to quash on the basis that he should have been charged with unauthorized use of a credit card (La.”

State v. MacHon, 410 So. 2d 1065 (La. 1982). · cites it 4× “R.S. 14:72. Following conviction by a jury of one of the counts of passing a forged $20 bill defendant was sentenced to serve seven years at hard labor.”

State v. Smith, 475 So. 2d 331 (La. 1985). · cites it 7× “R.S. 14:72. This criminal code section creates and defines the crime of forgery in two separate ways: (1) the false making or altering, with intent to defraud, of any writing purporting to have legal efficacy and (2) the issuing or transferring, with intent to defraud, of a…”

State v. Juluke, 374 So. 2d 1259 (La. 1979). · cites it 6× “Defendant was charged by bill of information with forgery, a violation of R.S. 14:72. The bill alleged that she had forged, with the intent to defraud, the signature of "Mrs.”

State v. Fabacher, 362 So. 2d 555 (La. 1978). · cites it 4× “R.S. 14:72. Defendant waived trial by jury and elected to be tried by the court.”

State v. Ray, 423 So. 2d 1116 (La. 1982). · cites it 2× “Westley Ray was convicted by a six-person jury of one count of forgery, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:72. Ray was then sentenced by the trial court to serve ten years at hard labor, the maximum sentence.”

State Ex Rel. Nicholas v. State, 520 So. 2d 377 (La. 1988). · cites it 4× “R.S. 14:72, adjudicated a quadruple offender, La.”

Show all 240 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:72(A) — 6 cases

Williams v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. of West Feliciana Par., 250 F. Supp. 3d 90 (M.D. La. 2017). “Plaintiff, however, “fails to make á showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [her] case, and on which [she] will bear the burden of proof at trial,” regarding the claims in which she asserts that Defendants violated the state laws prohibiting…”

State ex rel. T.S., 900 So. 2d 77 (La. Ct. App. 2005).

Victorian v. Am. Deposit Ins. Co., 923 So. 2d 650 (La. Ct. App. 2005).

State v. Bourgeois, 113 So. 3d 225 (La. Ct. App. 2013).

State Ex Rel. Ts, 900 So. 2d 77 (La. Ct. App. 2005).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:72(B) — 3 cases

State v. Dufrene, 251 So. 3d 1114 (La. Ct. App. 2018).

State ex rel. J. F., 851 So. 2d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2003).

State Ex Rel. Jf, 851 So. 2d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2003).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:72(C) — 2 cases

State ex rel. J. F., 851 So. 2d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2003).

State Ex Rel. Jf, 851 So. 2d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2003).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:72(C)(l)(a)(i) — 1 case

Victorian v. Am. Deposit Ins. Co., 923 So. 2d 650 (La. Ct. App. 2005).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:72(C)(l)(a)(iii) — 1 case

State v. Bourgeois, 148 So. 3d 561 (La. 2013).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:72(D) — 3 cases

State v. Gaspard, 49 So. 3d 971 (La. Ct. App. 2010).

State v. McKenzie, 105 So. 3d 959 (La. Ct. App. 2012).

State v. Gibson, 147 So. 3d 280 (La. Ct. App. 2014).

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.