Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-172 (2026)

Forging, uttering, etc., other writings

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If any person forge any writing, other than such as is mentioned in §§ 18.2-168 and 18.2-170, to the prejudice of another's right, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged writing, knowing it to be forged, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. Any person who shall obtain, by any false pretense or token, the signature of another person, to any such writing, with intent to defraud any other person, shall be deemed guilty of the forgery thereof, and shall be subject to like punishment.

Code 1950, § 18.1-96; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 82 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Campbell v. Commonwealth, 431 S.E.2d 648 (Va. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Campbell v. Commonwealth, 431 S.E.2d 648 (Va. 1993). · cites it 20× “[6] See Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-172 (Repl.Vol.1988); Va.”

Moore v. Commonwealth, 722 S.E.2d 668 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 20× “2-178, and three counts of uttering a forged writing under Code § 18.2-172. On appeal, Moore contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying her motion to strike two of the three obtaining money by false pretenses charges pursuant to the single larceny doctrine where Moore…”

Beshah v. Commonwealth, 725 S.E.2d 144 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “Netsaneh Beshah, appellant, was convicted of four counts of forgery, in violation of Code § 18.2-172. On appeal, she contends the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to defraud and prejudice to another.”

Stevenson v. Commonwealth, 499 S.E.2d 580 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 40× “William Cage Stevenson was convicted by a jury for "forg[ing] a cardiac stress test writing, to the prejudice of Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield" (Trigon), in violation of Code § 18.2-172. Conceding he altered the date the stress test was given, Stevenson contends the evidence is…”

Campbell v. Commonwealth, 409 S.E.2d 21 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 12× “Of all of the statutes, only Code § 18.2-172 provides the requirement that the writing be “to the prejudice of another’s right.”

Oliver v. Commonwealth, 544 S.E.2d 870 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Winston Sylvester Oliver, II, was convicted in a bench trial of forgery and uttering, each in violation of Code § 18.2-172, and of failing to appear in court, a felony, in violation of Code § 19.”

Brown v. Commonwealth, 692 S.E.2d 271 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “2-111, and four convictions of uttering, in violation of Code § 18.2-172. On appeal, Brown contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain any of his convictions.”

Morgan Sinclair Goodwin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 767 S.E.2d 741 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “1-96 (1960), the precursor to Code § 18.2-172, “list[ed] two offenses in the disjunctive: one, forgery, and the other, uttering or attempting to employ as true a forged writing”).”

Anderson v. ITT Indus. Corp., 92 F. Supp. 2d 516 (E.D. Va. 2000). · cites it 9× “The narrow issue presented here is whether plaintiffs termination for refusing to engage in conduct he claims would have violated the Virginia statutes against forgery, Va.Code § 18.2-172, and obtaining money by false pretenses, Va.”

Bowman v. Commonwealth, 503 S.E.2d 241 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “Gerald Wesley Bowman was convicted of four counts each of forgery and uttering, in violation of Code § 18.2-172, and four counts of petit larceny, in violation of Code § 18.”

Timbers v. Commonwealth, 503 S.E.2d 233 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Code § 18.2-172, codifying the common law crime of forgery, provides that “[i]f any person forge any writing, .”

Pope v. Commonwealth, 449 S.E.2d 269 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “Pope appeals his conviction for forgery in violation of Code § 18.2-172. Pope contends (1) the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to try him because his conviction was initially obtained in the wrong court, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict him because of the…”

Show all 82 citing 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.