§
Subdivision 1.Making or altering writing or object.
Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following kinds so that it purports to have been made by another or by the maker or alterer under an assumed or fictitious name, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority, is guilty of aggravated forgery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) a writing or object whereby, when genuine, legal rights, privileges, or obligations are created, terminated, transferred, or evidenced, or any writing normally relied upon as evidence of debt or property rights, other than a check as defined in section 609.631 or a financial transaction card as defined in section 609.821; or
(2) an official seal or the seal of a corporation; or
(3) a public record or an official authentication or certification of a copy thereof; or
(4) an official return or certificate entitled to be received as evidence of its contents; or
(5) a court order, judgment, decree, or process; or
(6) the records or accounts of a public body, office, or officer; or
(7) the records or accounts of a bank or person, with whom funds of the state or any of its agencies or subdivisions are deposited or entrusted, relating to such funds.
§
Subd. 2.Means for false reproduction.
Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, engraves, possesses or transfers a plate or instrument for the false reproduction of a writing or object mentioned in subdivision 1, a check as defined in section 609.631, or a financial transaction card as defined in section 609.821, may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 1.
§
Subd. 3.Uttering or possessing.
Whoever, with intent to defraud, utters or possesses with intent to utter any forged writing or object mentioned in subdivision 1, not including a check as defined in section 609.631 or a financial transaction card as defined in section 609.821, knowing it to have been so forged, may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 1.
Notes of Decisions
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980).
· cites it 2× “253 (1968) (fine or up to 5 years); Minn. Stat. § 609.625 (3) (1964) (fine or up to 10 years); Miss.”
State v. M.D.T., 831 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 3× “with two counts of aggravated forgery in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.625, subd. 1(1) (2012) (“making or altering”), and MinmStat.”
State v. Reynua, 807 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Reynua was charged with two counts of aggravated forgery in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.625 , subds. 1, 3 (2006); perjury in violation of Minn.”
State v. Niska, 514 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 1994).
· cites it 6× “1985); (3) aggravated forgery under Minn.Stat. § 609.625, subd. 3 (1986); (4) aggravated forgery under Minn.”
State v. Jackson, 363 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Both of these convictions were imposed for violating Minn.Stat. § 609.625. Jackson’s "aggravated forgery" conviction was based on subdivision 1 which prohibits making or altering certain writings or objects with the intent to defraud.”
State v. Moore, 340 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 3× “After the forgeries were discovered, defendant was charged with eight counts of aggravated forgery, Minn.Stat. § 609.625, subd. 1 (1982), based on separate acts of forgery occurring on eight different dates in February, March and April of 1982 (checks totaling $2,608.”
State v. Garner, 294 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Defendant, Michael Ray Garner, was found guilty by a jury of uttering a forged check in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.625, subd. 3 (1978), 1 and was sentenced to 10 *726 years.”
State v. Burrell, 837 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 2× “At the conclusion of the investigation, Burrell was charged with two counts of aggravated forgery in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.625, subd. 1(1) (2012), one count for each of the confessions of judgment that Burrell signed in December 2007.”
State v. Pleas, 329 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Defendant was charged in district court with aggravated forgery-uttering, Minn. Stat. § 609.625 , subd. 1(1), (3) (1982).”
State v. Bolts, 288 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of aggravated forgery, Minn. Stat. § 609.625 , subd. 3 (1978), for uttering a forged payroll check which had been stolen from a locked desk in the manager’s office in the parking ramp where defendant worked.”
In Re Welfare of Child. of D.M.T.-r., 802 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “1, 2 (2008), and aggravated forgery, a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.625 , subd. 1(1) (2008).”
State v. Niska, 499 N.W.2d 820 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “1985); one count of aggravated forgery in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.625 , subd. 3 (1986); one count of aggravated forgery in violation of Minn.”
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.