(1) Whoever, with intent to deceive or harm, falsely makes, completes, endorses, alters, or utters any written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed, a written instrument which does or may evidence, create, transfer, terminate, or otherwise affect a legal right, interest, obligation, or status, commits forgery in the second degree.
(2) Forgery in the second degree is a Class IIA felony when the face value, or purported face value, or the amount of any proceeds wrongfully procured or intended to be procured by the use of such instrument, is five thousand dollars or more.
(3) Forgery in the second degree is a Class IV felony when the face value, or purported face value, or the amount of any proceeds wrongfully procured or intended to be procured by the use of such instrument, is one thousand five hundred dollars or more but is less than five thousand dollars.
(4) Forgery in the second degree is a Class I misdemeanor when the face value, or purported face value, or the amount of any proceeds wrongfully procured or intended to be procured by the use of such instrument, is five hundred dollars or more but is less than one thousand five hundred dollars.
(5) Forgery in the second degree is a Class II misdemeanor when the face value, or purported face value, or the amount of any proceeds wrongfully procured or intended to be procured by the use of such instrument, is less than five hundred dollars.
(6) For the purpose of determining the class of penalty for forgery in the second degree, the face values, or purported face values, or the amounts of any proceeds wrongfully procured or intended to be procured by the use of more than one such instrument, may be aggregated in the indictment or information if such instruments were part of the same scheme or course of conduct which took place within a sixty-day period and within one county. Such values or amounts shall not be aggregated into more than one offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case:
State v. Irish, 394 N.W.2d 879 (Neb. 1986).
State v. Irish, 394 N.W.2d 879 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiff will move the Court to amend the charge herein to Forgery in the Second Degree in violation of Section 28-603, a Class I Misdemeanor, alleging that the Defendant did, with intent to deceive, falsely utter a written instrument which purported to be a written instrument…”
State v. Ward, 510 N.W.2d 320 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The pink “checks,” as they are called, are DCS internal documents which authorize the DCS inmate accounting office to write a regular check on the requesting inmate’s trust account, which is maintained at a bank.”
Hill v. AMMC, Inc., 300 Neb. 412 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, Hill's 2017 complaint alleged the actions AMMC asked her to take would have amounted to forgery under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603 (Reissue 2016) and would have violated Neb.”
State v. Castor, 632 N.W.2d 298 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Castor was charged with and convicted of four counts of forgery in the second degree in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603 (1) (Reissue 1995), which provides: Whoever, with intent to deceive or harm, falsely makes, completes, endorses, alters, or utters any written instrument…”
State v. Bostwick, 385 N.W.2d 906 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Two separate informations were filed on April 20, 1984, and charged Bostwick with second degree forgery (see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603 (1) (Reissue 1979)) and possession of a forged instrument (see Neb.”
State v. Bostwick, 443 N.W.2d 885 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The instruments involved in the forgery charges were Commercial’s checks, bearing Hammitt’s apparent signature.”
State v. Davis, 398 N.W.2d 729 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Davis on the charge of second degree forgery, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603 (1) (Reissue 1985), an offense which occurred on April 25, 1985, and the district court sentenced Davis as a habitual criminal, see Neb.”
State v. Bodtke, 363 N.W.2d 917 (Neb. 1985).
“Later, in Thayer County, Bodtke was charged with two counts of forgery, namely, falsely making a claim against Farmers Mutual in violation of § 28-602(1) and falsely endorsing or uttering a check issued by Farmers Mutual to an insured.”
State v. Stastny, 419 N.W.2d 873 (Neb. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Initially, the State charged Stastny in separate informations, that is, charges of second degree forgery in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603 (1) (Reissue 1985), theft by unlawful taking in violation of Neb.”
State v. Sack, 477 N.W.2d 921 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 2× “In accordance with his plea, defendant-appellant, Judson Sack, was adjudged guilty of second degree forgery, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603 (Reissue 1989). He was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than 6 nor more than 20 years.”
State v. Davis, 423 N.W.2d 487 (Neb. 1988).
· cites it 2× “2d 729 (1987), he was represented at trial by counsel; a jury found Davis guilty of second degree forgery, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603 (1) (Reissue 1985); and the district court sentenced Davis as a habitual criminal, see Neb.”
State v. Tate, 385 N.W.2d 456 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Defendant contends that the State failed to prove a prima facie case of second degree forgery because there was no testimony positively identifying her as the person who attempted to cash the check, as the owner of the bag or its contents, or as the person who had forged the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603(1) — 5 cases
State v. Irish, 394 N.W.2d 879 (Neb. 1986).
“Plaintiff will move the Court to amend the charge herein to Forgery in the Second Degree in violation of Section 28-603, a Class I Misdemeanor, alleging that the Defendant did, with intent to deceive, falsely utter a written instrument which purported to be a written instrument…”
State v. Bodtke, 363 N.W.2d 917 (Neb. 1985).
“Later, in Thayer County, Bodtke was charged with two counts of forgery, namely, falsely making a claim against Farmers Mutual in violation of § 28-602(1) and falsely endorsing or uttering a check issued by Farmers Mutual to an insured.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603(2) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603(3) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603(4) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-603(6) — 1 case
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.