Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114
Forgery
- (a) A person commits an offense who forges a writing with intent to defraud or harm another.
- (b) As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:
- (1) "Forge" means to:
- (A) Alter, make, complete, execute or authenticate any writing so that it purports to:
- (i) Be the act of another who did not authorize that act;
- (ii) Have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case; or
- (iii) Be a copy of an original when no such original existed;
- (B) Make false entries in books or records;
- (C) Issue, transfer, register the transfer of, pass, publish, or otherwise utter a writing that is forged within the meaning of subdivision (b)(1)(A); or
- (D) Possess a writing that is forged within the meaning of subdivision (b)(1)(A) with intent to utter it in a manner specified in subdivision (b)(1)(C); and
- (A) Alter, make, complete, execute or authenticate any writing so that it purports to:
- (2) "Writing" includes printing or any other method of recording information, money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, trademarks, and symbols of value, right, privilege or identification.
- (1) "Forge" means to:
- (c) An offense under this section is punishable as theft pursuant to § 39-14-105, but in no event shall forgery be less than a Class E felony.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Cynthia J. Finch
State of Tennessee v. Cynthia J. Finch (2013)
“” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114 (a). The applicable terms “forge” and “writing” are defined as follows: (1) “Forge” means to: (A) Alter, make, complete, execute or authenticate any writing so that it purports to: (i) Be the act of another who did not authorize that act; (ii) Have…”
Estate of Acuff v. O'Linger (2001)
“The former statutory definition of forgery was “[Fjorgery is the fraudulent making or alteration of any writing to the prejudice of another’s rights.”
State of Tennessee v. Alkita M. Odom (2001)
“§§ 39-14-114, 115. It can hardly be disputed that it is more serious to forge a writing in the amount of $300,000 with the intent to defraud or harm another than it is to forge a writing in the amount of $10 with the intent to defraud or harm another.”
Regions Bank v. Bric Constructors, LLC, f/k/a Bric Contractors, LLC, and Patricia McIntosh (2011)
“In our view, the evidence in the record does not support the Defendants’ claim that the relevant documents were “forged.”
Board of Professional Responsibility v. Curry (2008)
“” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-114(a). Thus, a necessary element of the act of forgery is an intent to defraud.”
State v. Jackson (2003)
“See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114 (a). There is no proof here that the Defendant was attempting to conceal anything other than *145 his own identity.”
State v. Knight (1997)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-114(a). The term “forge” includes altering, making, completing, executing or authenticating any writing so it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act.”
State v. Elam (1999)
“Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-14-114(c), -105(2). The state argues that TenmCode Ann.”
Barnwell v. State (1990)
“See, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114 (1989). Thus, Mississippi's maximum sentence for uttering a forgery exceeds the maximum possible sentence for each of the aforementioned states.”
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lyons, James Michael Usinger, Lee Harold Cromwell, Austin Gary Cooper, and Christopher Alan (2021)
“All of the odd numbered counts of the indictment charged an individual defendant with one count of fraudulent filing of a lien in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-117 while all even numbered counts of the indictment charged forgery in violation of Tennessee…”
Aron J. Austin v. Southern Roofing & Renovations, LLC (2021)
“Whether the Circuit Court erred in dismissing Appellant’s claim for violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-114 because it does not offer a private right of action.”
State of Tennessee v. Danyelle McCullough (2018)
““Forge” means to: (A) Alter, make, complete, execute or authenticate any writing so that it purports to: (i) Be the act of another who did not authorize that act; (ii) Have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case; or (iii) Be a…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(a) — 24 cases
Board of Professional Responsibility v. Curry (2008)
“” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-114(a). Thus, a necessary element of the act of forgery is an intent to defraud.”
State of Tennessee v. Cynthia J. Finch (2013)
“” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114 (a). The applicable terms “forge” and “writing” are defined as follows: (1) “Forge” means to: (A) Alter, make, complete, execute or authenticate any writing so that it purports to: (i) Be the act of another who did not authorize that act; (ii) Have…”
State of Tennessee v. Alkita M. Odom (2001)
“§§ 39-14-114, 115. It can hardly be disputed that it is more serious to forge a writing in the amount of $300,000 with the intent to defraud or harm another than it is to forge a writing in the amount of $10 with the intent to defraud or harm another.”
State v. Knight (1997)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-114(a). The term “forge” includes altering, making, completing, executing or authenticating any writing so it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act.”
Regions Bank v. Bric Constructors, LLC, f/k/a Bric Contractors, LLC, and Patricia McIntosh (2011)
“In our view, the evidence in the record does not support the Defendants’ claim that the relevant documents were “forged.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(a)(2003) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b) — 5 cases
State of Tennessee v. Cynthia J. Finch (2013)
“” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114 (a). The applicable terms “forge” and “writing” are defined as follows: (1) “Forge” means to: (A) Alter, make, complete, execute or authenticate any writing so that it purports to: (i) Be the act of another who did not authorize that act; (ii) Have…”
State of Tennessee v. Alkita M. Odom (2001)
“§§ 39-14-114, 115. It can hardly be disputed that it is more serious to forge a writing in the amount of $300,000 with the intent to defraud or harm another than it is to forge a writing in the amount of $10 with the intent to defraud or harm another.”
State v. Lori A. Little (2000)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1) — 3 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(A) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(A)(I) — 3 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(A)(i) — 5 cases
State v. Alonzo Watson (1998)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(B) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lyons, James Michael Usinger, Lee Harold Cromwell, Austin Gary Cooper, and Christopher Alan (2021)
“All of the odd numbered counts of the indictment charged an individual defendant with one count of fraudulent filing of a lien in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-117 while all even numbered counts of the indictment charged forgery in violation of Tennessee…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(C) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(D) — 1 case
State v. James Walker (2010)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(2) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(2010) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(l)(A)(i) — 1 case
State v. Knight (1997)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-114(a). The term “forge” includes altering, making, completing, executing or authenticating any writing so it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(c) — 8 cases
State v. Elam (1999)
“Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-14-114(c), -105(2). The state argues that TenmCode Ann.”
State of Tennessee v. Alkita M. Odom (2001)
“§§ 39-14-114, 115. It can hardly be disputed that it is more serious to forge a writing in the amount of $300,000 with the intent to defraud or harm another than it is to forge a writing in the amount of $10 with the intent to defraud or harm another.”
State v. Jackson (2003)
“See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114 (a). There is no proof here that the Defendant was attempting to conceal anything other than *145 his own identity.”
State of Tennessee v. Danyelle McCullough (2018)
““Forge” means to: (A) Alter, make, complete, execute or authenticate any writing so that it purports to: (i) Be the act of another who did not authorize that act; (ii) Have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case; or (iii) Be a…”
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.