If any person, directly or indirectly, whether for the sake of gain or with intent to defraud or injure any other person, shall utter or publish any such false, forged or counterfeited instrument as is mentioned in G.S. 14-119, or shall pass or deliver, or attempt to pass or deliver, any of them to another person (knowing the same to be falsely forged or counterfeited) the person so offending shall be punished as a Class I felon. If any person, directly or indirectly, whether for the sake of gain or with intent to defraud or injure any other person, shall falsely make, forge or counterfeit any endorsement on any instrument described in the preceding section, whether such instrument be genuine or false, or shall knowingly utter or publish any such instrument containing a false, forged or counterfeited endorsement or, knowing the same to be falsely endorsed, shall pass or deliver or attempt to pass or deliver any such instrument containing a forged endorsement to another person, the person so offending shall be guilty of a Class I felony. (1819, c. 994, s. 2, P.R.; R.C., c. 34, s. 61; Code, s. 1031; Rev., s. 3427; 1909, c. 666; C.S., s. 4294; 1961, c. 94; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1983, c. 397, s. 2; 1993, c. 539, s. 1185; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
44
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case:
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980).
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980).
· cites it 2× “25 (McKinney 1967 and 1975) (up to 7 years); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-120 (1969) (4 months to 10 years); N.”
State v. Conley, 724 S.E.2d 163 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Defendant's intent to defraud with respect to both the uttering a forged instrument charge, see N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-120 (2011) and the attempting to obtain property by false pretenses charge, see N.”
State v. Sisk, 473 S.E.2d 348 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-120 (1993). Thus, defendant's argument is without merit.”
State v. Kirkpatrick, 480 S.E.2d 400 (N.C. 1997).
· cites it 6× “On 20 April 1994 a jury found defendant guilty of uttering a check bearing a forged endorsement, a Class I felony, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-120. The following day the trial court conducted a separate proceeding on the charge of being an habitual felon.”
State v. Greenlee, 159 S.E.2d 22 (N.C. 1968).
· cites it 3× “), the person so offending shall be punished by imprisonment.”
State v. King, 630 S.E.2d 719 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “§ 14-119 , and thirteen counts of uttering in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-120 . Defendant was tried in Wayne County Superior Court beginning 18 April 2005.”
State v. Cranfield, 76 S.E.2d 353 (N.C. 1953).
· cites it 3× “14-119, relating to “Forgery of bank-notes, checks and other securities,” and (2) G.S. 14-120, relating to “Uttering forged paper.”
State v. Cradle, 188 S.E.2d 296 (N.C. 1972).
“General Assembly of North Carolina and not the judiciary to determine the extent of punishment which may be imposed on those convicted of crime.”
State v. Baynard, 339 S.E.2d 810 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Defendant argues by analogy to the forgery and uttering statute, G.S. 14-120. To support a conviction for a violation of that statute, the indictment must allege that the defendant actually knew of the falsity of the instrument.”
State v. Daye, 208 S.E.2d 891 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 3× “Yet the evidence tends to show that the drawer, the drawee, the payee, the date, and the amount are perfectly valid.”
State v. Thompson, 303 S.E.2d 85 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “That offense comprises three essential elements: (1) the offer of a forged check or other instrument to another; (2) with knowledge that the instrument is false; and (3) with the intent to defraud or injure another.”
State v. McAllister, 214 S.E.2d 75 (N.C. 1975).
“As we said in State v. Greenlee, supra: “Uttering a forged instrument consists in offering to another the forged instrument with the knowledge of the falsity of the writing and with intent to defraud.”
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.