Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (2026)
Uttering counterfeit instrument or coin
✓ current as of July 2026
Every person who shall be convicted of having uttered or published as true, and with intent to defraud, any forged, altered, or counterfeit instrument, or any counterfeit gold or silver coin, the forgery, altering, or counterfeiting of which is declared by the provisions of this chapter to be an offense, knowing such instrument or coin to be forged, altered, or counterfeited, shall suffer the punishment herein provided for forgery, pursuant to Section 97-21-33.
Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 64, art. 12, Title 4(39); 1857, ch. 64, art. 122; 1871, § 2586; 1880, § 2832; 1892, § 1111; 1906, § 1192; Hemingway's 1917, § 922; 1930, § 949; 1942, § 2179.
Amended by Laws, 2014, ch. 457, HB 585, 27, eff. 7/1/2014.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1990–2015 · leading case: Barnwell v. State, 567 So. 2d 215 (Miss. 1990).
Barnwell v. State, 567 So. 2d 215 (Miss. 1990). “Barnwell was indicted under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (1972), for uttering a forgery and under Miss.”
Logan v. State, 773 So. 2d 338 (Miss. 2000). “§ 97-7-10 (1994), and five counts of uttering forgery, under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (1994). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.”
Moore v. State, 830 So. 2d 1274 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (Rev.2000). The crime includes the need for a forgery, while "uttering it is a declaration that it is good, with an intention or offer to pass it.”
Walker v. State, 861 So. 2d 354 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (Rev.2000). The court found the error in the statutory reference to be one that was waived by Walker by entering his guilty plea.”
Tate v. State, 961 So. 2d 763 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). “The crime of uttering a forgery is defined by statute as follows: Every person who shall be convicted of having uttered or published as true, and with intent to defraud, any forged, altered, or counterfeit instrument, or any counterfeit gold or silver coin, the forgery,…”
Blackwell v. State, 744 So. 2d 359 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “…instrument or coin to be forged, altered, or counterfeited, shall suffer the punishment herein provided for forgery. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (Rev. 1994).”
Daniel Richard Zales v. State of Mississippi, 194 So. 3d 182 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (Rev.2014). 5 .”
Duhart v. State, 927 So. 2d 768 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59; see also Coward v.”
Cannady v. State, 855 So. 2d 1000 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (Rev.2000). ¶ 6.”
Wiseman v. State, 771 So. 2d 977 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (Rev.1994). ¶ 9.”
Sandi Vaughan v. Carlock Nissan of Tupelo, Inc., e, 553 F. App'x 438 (5th Cir. 2014). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59. In context of this appeal, Carlock employees committed the crime of uttering a forgery if they (1) published as true, (2) a forged or altered document, (3) knowing that the document was forged or altered, and (4) had the intent to defraud.”
Dillard v. State, 811 So. 2d 389 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “Michael Dillard was indicted by the Circuit Court of Calhoun County on three counts of uttering a forgery in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (Rev.2000). He was tried and found guilty by a jury on count II, and sentenced to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi…”
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.