DocketNumber: No. 94CA1646.
Citation Numbers: 664 N.E.2d 596, 105 Ohio App. 3d 504
Judges: Kline, Stephenson, Harsha
Filed Date: 8/4/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Defendant-appellant, Dale Sufronko, was charged with forgery in violation of R.C.
"The trial court erred in finding defendant guilty, as R.C. Section
Appellant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and driving left of center by Ohio State Patrol Trooper Troy Johnson. Trooper Johnson initially issued the citations to "David Sufronko," as this was the name given by the appellant. During the course of the arrest, appellant signed three documents as "David Sufronko," who is, in fact, appellant's brother. David Sufronko had not authorized appellant to sign his name to these documents. *Page 506 After failing to appear in court to answer the traffic charges, appellant was arrested on a failure to appear warrant.
Appellant was then indicted on one count of forgery, in violation of R.C.
Appellant asserts that the state erred by indicting him with forgery under R.C.
When interpreting statutes and their application, an appellate court conducts a de novo review, without deference to the trial court's determination. This court will first look to the issue of whether an R.C.
Principles of statutory construction require that specific statutory provisions prevail over conflicting general statutes.State v. Volpe (1988),
"If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, they shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later adoption and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail."
In determining the applicability of R.C.
To be considered irreconcilable, the statutes must first prohibit the same conduct, specifically the conduct of which appellant was convicted. Appellant would have this court conclude that signing his brother's name, without authorization, to the documents presented by the trooper is the same conduct constituting falsification and forgery. To support his contention that the General Assembly intended the special statute of falsification to apply, appellant relies on the specific provision, R.C.
Issuing citations and extracting information from appellant in the course of an arrest certainly constitutes a function of a public official. Accordingly, appellant argues that by using and signing his brother's name to documents during the arrest, he has committed falsification. The documents that appellant signed are not included in the record, and, further, this court finds that a determination of falsification is not necessary for the purpose of this review. Therefore, this court refrains from ruling on whether falsification occurred.1
Assuming, arguendo, that appellant had committed falsification by signing his brother's name to the bottom of the statements, separate conduct still exists that results in more than a violation of falsification. This separate conduct is the act of forgery.
Under the forgery statute, R.C.
"``forge' means to fabricate or create, in whole or in part and by any means, any spurious writing, or to make, execute, alter, complete, reproduce, or otherwise purport to authenticate any writing, when the writing in fact is not authenticated by that conduct."
Under the falsification statute, R.C.
This court initially notes that the requirements for a violation of the two statutes are not the same. A significant difference is that a false statement does not have to be in writing, while a forgery does. Further, a forgery does not have to contain false information, while a falsification does. InState v. Bryan (Feb. 2, 1984), Coshocton App. No. 83CA13, unreported, 1984 WL 4443, the court found that "[f]orgery and falsification are not the same offense. The forgery purports to be something that it is not. It may or may not contain false information. A false statement may or may not accurately indicate its maker. The gist of [falsification] is that the information contained in it must be false." Id.
Beyond the required elements for the offense of forgery and falsification, this court also notes that the purposes of the two statutes differ. The purpose of the forgery statute is to ensure the authenticity or validity of a writing.4 The falsification prohibition is meant to apply to the substance of the declarations. Coyne, supra,
Appellant is correct in asserting that inherently, forgery includes the act of falsifying. However, this does not always result in the unlawful act of falsification pursuant to R.C.
This court previously applied the same rationale in State v.Cooper (1990),
We find the same rationale applies to the case sub judice. Acts committed under the falsification statute do not necessarily violate the forgery statute. Forgery invalidates theauthenticity of the writing, not the substance of the writing. Therefore, the violations of the two statutes result from different conduct. The statutes prohibit separate and distinct offenses and therefore, the statutes are reconcilable.5
If the appellant did make false declarations or assertions, that conduct was separate from the act of forgery. Appellee chose to prosecute the appellant on the conduct of forgery and not for the conduct of falsification. "The mere fact that appellant's conduct violates more than one statute does not force the state to prosecute him under the lesser statute."Cooper, supra,
Accordingly, this court finds that R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
STEPHENSON and HARSHA, JJ., concur.
"(A) No person, with purpose to defraud, or knowing that he is facilitating a fraud, shall do any of the following:
"(1) Forge any writing of another without his authority;
"(2) Forge any writing so that it purports to be genuine when it is actually spurious, or to be the act of another who did not authorize that act, or to have been executed at a time or place or with terms different from what was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original when no such original existed;
"* * *
"(C)(1) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of forgery, a felony of the fourth degree."
"(A) No person shall knowingly make a false statement, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when any of the following applies:
"* * *
"(3) The statement is made with purpose to mislead a public official in performing the public official's official function."
State v. Cabannis , 2021 Ohio 1376 ( 2021 )
Kerger & Hartman, L.L.C. v. Ajami , 2015 Ohio 5157 ( 2015 )
State v. Chandler , 2016 Ohio 1017 ( 2016 )
In Re Adrian R., 08-Ca-17 (12-11-2008) , 2008 Ohio 6581 ( 2008 )
State v. Ray , 181 Ohio App. 3d 590 ( 2009 )
M6 Motors, Inc. v. Nissan of N. Olmsted, L.L.C. , 2014 Ohio 2537 ( 2014 )
State v. Lindstrom , 2011 Ohio 6755 ( 2011 )
Kehoe v. Kehoe , 2012 Ohio 3357 ( 2012 )
State v. Ogle , 2013 Ohio 3420 ( 2013 )
In re B.A. , 2013 Ohio 596 ( 2013 )
State v. Miller , 2012 Ohio 5280 ( 2012 )