Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. White
Citations: 735 P.2d 684; 47 Wash. App. 370; 1987 Wash. App. LEXIS 3408Docket: 7753-5-III
Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; March 31, 1987; Washington; State Appellate Court
Darrin Lee White appealed his conviction for four counts of forgery related to the unauthorized use of cash machine cards belonging to his sister and brother-in-law. In October 1985, White took the cards, obtained the access code, and withdrew funds from their bank account without authorization. The Gelinases discovered the unauthorized transactions upon reviewing their bank statements and confronted White, who admitted his actions. The primary legal issue was whether the unauthorized use of a cash machine card constituted forgery under Washington law. The court examined the statutory definitions of "written instrument" and whether White's actions fell under the forgery statute, RCW 9A.60.020. The court noted that while the statute includes provisions for credit cards as "written instruments," the definition of a cash machine card lacked clarity. Given the ambiguity in the statutes, the court applied the rule of lenity, which mandates that laws be interpreted strictly in favor of the accused. Consequently, the court determined that the cash machine card did not qualify as "evidence or symbol of value, right, privilege, or identification" necessary for a forgery charge. The court reversed White's conviction based on these interpretations, emphasizing the importance of fundamental fairness in the application of penal statutes. A combination of three statutes may suggest a basis for a forgery conviction, but this interpretation requires an improper deviation from the literal meanings of the statutes involved. The court emphasized that if the Legislature intended for 'written instruments' to encompass cash machine cards, it should explicitly state that intention. The principle of judicial restraint mandates that the court refrain from adopting the State's interpretation. The State failed to establish that a forgery occurred, as the definition of a forged instrument requires it to be 'falsely made, completed or altered.' Entering the correct access code does not equate to false making. Unauthorized signatures do not constitute forgery if they accurately represent the individual’s identity. Although the access number was used without authorization, it did not result in forgery, as the card was neither altered nor incomplete. The court concluded that while the unauthorized use of the card may represent a crime, it does not meet the criteria for forgery, leading to a reversal of the conviction. Judges Green and Munson concurred.