Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.63 (2026)

Forgery

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Crime defined; intent to defraud.

Whoever, with intent to injure or defraud, does any of the following is guilty of forgery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both:

(1) uses a false writing, knowing it to be false, for the purpose of identification or recommendation; or

(2) without consent, places, or possesses with intent to place, upon any merchandise an identifying label or stamp which is or purports to be that of another craftsperson, tradesperson, packer, or manufacturer, or disposes or possesses with intent to dispose of any merchandise so labeled or stamped; or

(3) falsely makes or alters a membership card purporting to be that of a fraternal, business, professional, or other association, or of any labor union, or possesses any such card knowing it to have been thus falsely made or altered; or

(4) falsely makes or alters a writing, or possesses a falsely made or altered writing, evidencing a right to transportation on a common carrier; or

(5) destroys, mutilates, or by alteration, false entry or omission, falsifies any record, account, or other document relating to a private business; or

(6) without authority of law, destroys, mutilates, or by alteration, false entry, or omission, falsifies any record, account, or other document relating to a person, corporation, or business, or filed in the office of, or deposited with, any public office or officer; or

(7) destroys a writing or object to prevent it from being produced at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding authorized by law.

Subd. 2.Crime defined; forged document at trial.

Whoever, with knowledge that it is forged, offers in evidence in any trial, hearing or other proceedings authorized by law, as genuine, any forged writing or object may be sentenced as follows:

(1) if the writing or object is offered in evidence in the trial of a felony charge, to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both; or

(2) in all other cases, to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Arbitration Between Minnesota State Patrol Troopers Ass'n Ex Rel. Pince v. State, Dep't of Pub. Saf., 437 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arbitration Between Minnesota State Patrol Troopers Ass'n Ex Rel. Pince v. State, Dep't of Pub. Saf., 437 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 12× “The county attorney indicated that although the forgery statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.63, subd. 1(6) (1986), could apply, he believed the provision "was intended to cover more public record-type of documents" and that it was unclear "that the statute was intended to include matters…”

State v. Reynua, 807 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “1 (2006); and two counts of simple forgery in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.63, subd. 1(1) (2006). The district court granted in part Reynua’s motion to dismiss; dismissing Count 2, aggravated forgery, and Count 7, simple forgery, both involving a social security card.”

Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc., 456 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 4× “02 (failure to comply with order compelling discovery); Minn.Stat. § 609.63, subd. 1(7) (1988) (intentional destruction of evidence).”

State v. Williams, 396 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 12× “The- State of Minnesota appeals from a pretrial order dismissing a forgery charge against respondent John Roscoe Williams in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.63, subd. 1(6) (1984). Dismissal of the charge was predicated on State v.”

State v. Jacobson, 697 N.W.2d 610 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 2× “175 (2004), and conspiracy to commit forgery in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.63, subd. 1(6) (2004), and § 609.”

State v. Thompson, 306 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 4× “Thompson was convicted of forgery in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.63, subd. 1(6) (1980), which reads: 609.”

State v. Mimbach, 420 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “This appeal is from a conviction for forgery, Minn.Stat. § 609.63, subd. l(5)(1984)(false entry falsifying a business document).”

State v. Lores, 512 N.W.2d 618 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “Dominguez was charged with three counts of forgery pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.63, subd. 1(1) (1992), for possession and presentation of the forged resident alien card, and two counts of aggravated forgery pursuant to Minn.”

United States v. Story, 170 F. Supp. 2d 863 (D. Minnesota 2001). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 609.63. Likewise, the two guns and ammunition (Item Nos.”

Waara v. Mesabi Reg'l Med. Ctr., 415 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Whoever, with intent to injure or defraud, does any of the following is guilty of forgery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000 or both: ****** (5) Destroys, mutilates, or by alteration, false entry or…”

Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health Sys. d/b/a United Hosp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “McDonald’s complaint may attempt to assert a civil claim arising from Allina’s alleged violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.63 (2014), a statute criminalizing forgery.”

Todd v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees, Council 5 (D. Minnesota 2021). · cites it 2× “In fact, under Minnesota law, the act of forgery is a criminal felony, Minn. Stat. § 609.63 , making it “contrary to the relevant policy articulated by the State.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

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.