570.090. Forgery — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of forgery if, with the purpose to defraud, the person:
(1) Makes, completes, alters or authenticates any writing so that it purports to have been made by another or at another time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case or with different terms or by authority of one who did not give such authority; or
(2) Erases, obliterates or destroys any writing; or
(3) Makes or alters anything other than a writing, including receipts and universal product codes, so that it purports to have a genuineness, antiquity, rarity, ownership or authorship which it does not possess; or
(4) Uses as genuine, or possesses for the purpose of using as genuine, or transfers with the knowledge or belief that it will be used as genuine, any writing or other thing including receipts and universal product codes, which the person knows has been made or altered in the manner described in this section.
2. The offense of forgery is a class D felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
141
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case:
State v. Diaz-Rey, 397 S.W.3d 5 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Diaz-Rey, 397 S.W.3d 5 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 23× “The circuit court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the information charging defendant with forgery in violation of section 570.090 RSMo (2000), 1 based on the use of a false social security number on an employment document, on the ground that the prosecution was preempted…”
State v. Smothers, 297 S.W.3d 626 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 11× “1 The State filed a felony information charging Smothers with two counts: violation of section 570.090 2 (forgery) and violation of section 570.”
Perkins v. Bridgeton Police Dept., 549 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 7× “Factual Background In 1991, Tracy Perkins ("Perkins") pled guilty to nine counts of Forgery in violation of Section 570.090 RSMo, where Perkins wrote checks in another person's name, without that person's authorization, and knowing that the checks were forged.”
State v. Stallings, 158 S.W.3d 310 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 5× “Rickey Stallings was convicted on one count of forgery, § 570.090, R.S.Mo.2000, and sentenced to a ten-year prison term.”
State v. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 648 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 14× “Defendant, Rhonda Bledsoe, was charged with twenty counts of forgery in violation of section 570.090. 1 A jury convicted Defendant of nine of the counts, acquitted her of ten of the counts, and was unable to reach a verdict on one count.”
State v. Fensom, 69 S.W.3d 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Fred Fensom pleaded guilty to forgery, section 570.090, RSMo 2000. Prior to sen *551 tencing, Mr.”
State v. Nesbitt, 299 S.W.3d 26 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “Louis County following his convic *28 tion by a jury on three counts of forgery, in violation of section 570.090 RSMo. (Supp.2008). 1 The trial court sentenced the defendant as a persistent offender to enhanced sentences of ten years’ imprisonment on each count, to be served…”
State v. Goebel, 83 S.W.3d 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “130 RSMo 1978 prohibits the prosecutor from electing to charge under § 570.090 RSMo 1978. This is particularly true where both sections were enacted at the same time.”
State v. Skaggs, 74 S.W.3d 282 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “Francois County following a jury trial finding him guilty of forgery, section 570.090, RSMo 2000, 1 and escape from confinement, section 575.”
Harvey v. State, 150 S.W.3d 128 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Movant was charged and pleaded guilty as a prior and persistent offender to one count of forgery in violation of section 570.090 RSMo (2000). He was ultimately sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to nine years of incarceration in the Missouri Department of Corrections.”
State v. Grady, 691 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 5× “130 RSMo 1978 prohibits the prosecutor from electing to charge under § 570.090 RSMo 1978. This is particularly true where both sections were enacted at the same time.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.090(1) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.090(4) — 2 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.