Harold Vance Morrison v. State Alaska

RABINOWITZ, Justice. OPINION In this appeal, appellant seeks a reversal of his conviction of the crime of forgery. 1 The
indictment under which appellant was tried charged that on the 30th day of September 1968 appellant did unlawfully and feloniously,
with intent to injure and defraud Prairie Market, Inc. * * * Matanuska Valley Bank, Anchorage Branch, and Robert E. Seaman
forge the name of the payee Robert E. Seaman as an endorsement to a check. * * * knowing at the time of endorsing the check
that he had no authority to sign the name of Robert E. Seaman. The trial Judge instructed the jury that an intent to defraud was an essential element of the crime of forgery. The jurors
were further told that "An intent to defraud is an intent to deceive another person for the purpose of gaining some material
advantage over him or to induce him to part with property or to alter his position to his injury or risk * * * ." Appellant
argues that this instruction was incorrect in that it did not require the prosecution to prove appellant intended to defraud
"a particular person or persons or a particular corporation." 2 A twofold approach embodying analysis of Alaska's relevant
statutory provisions concerning the subject of intent to defraud, as well as our opinion in Roberts v. State, 3 has led
us to the holding that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove, or for the trial court to instruct, that appellant
intended to defraud a particular person, or persons, or a particular corporation.