Legal Opinion

State v. Stahosky

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 16, 2013No. A12-1875Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOOTEN, Judge.

Appellant challenges her conviction for aggravated forgery on the basis that she did not act with “intent to defraud” within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 609.625, subd. 1. Appellant claims that by misidentifying herself and signing her sister’s name to a continuance for dismissal agreement and payment plan in order to resolve a speeding ticket, she did not intend to deprive or harm the property rights of another, but merely intended to avoid prosecution for the gross misdemeanor charge of driving with a license cancelled as inimical to public safety. Because one may act…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Christianson v. HenkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  2. State v. MauerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  3. State v. ColvinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  4. State v. WassonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. State v. KelbelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API