People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 20 November 1975
• Citation: 375 N.Y.S.2d 992,84 Misc.2d 267
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Lawrence BROWN, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 992

375 N.Y.S.2d 992

84 Misc.2d 267

PEOPLE of the State of New York v.Lawrence BROWN, Defendant.

Nassau County Court.

Nov. 20, 1975.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, for plaintiff.

James J. McDonough, Atty. in Charge, Legal Aid Society of Nassau County City, Mineola, for defendant.

JOHN S. LOCKMAN, Judge.

By the defendant's motion for an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and a dismissal of the indictment, the court is broached with what appears to be the novel issue of whether the signing of a blank Police Department fingerprint card in a name other than one's given name constitutes the crime of Forgery in the Second Degree.

The facts are not in dispute.The defendant pursuant to an arrest was brought to the Records Bureau of the Nassau County Police Department to be processed, that is, photograph and fingerprinted.The defendant was presented with a blank fingerprint card on which he was asked to sign his name.The defendant did so in the name of Eddie Freeman in the presence of a police officer and the fingerprinting procedure was then completed.Upon comparison with the known fingerprints on record with the Nassau County Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it was learned that the defendant's real name was Lawrence Brown.

Forgery in the Second Degree, as it pertains to the instant indictment, is defined as follows:

'A person is guilty of forgery in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed:

'3.A written instrument officially issued or created by a public office, public servant or governmental instrumentality; . . .'(§ 170.10(3) Penal Law.)

The crime of forgery by its nature is determined by its definitional parameters.The first definitional hurdle to overcome is whether the document in issue is a 'written instrument'.Section 170.00(1) of the Penal Law provides:

'1.'Written instrument' means any instrument or article containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, used for the purpose of reciting, embodying, conveying or recording information, or constituting a symbol or evidence of value, right, privilege or identification, which is capable of being used to the advantage or disadvantage of some person.'

The legislative intent underlying the above definition is revealed in the Commission Staff Notes(Gilbert Criminal Law and Procedure, 1974, Matthew Bender, 2 A--79).

'. . .isl

The term 'written instrument'(the subject of forgery) is broadly defined.It covers every kind of document and other item deemed susceptible or deceitful use in a 'forgery' sense, the main requirement being only that it be 'capable of being used to the advantage or disadvantage of some person'(subd. 1).'(Emphasis added.)

The primal consideration in the case at bar is whether the document in question, a blank fingerprint card, is capable of being used to the advantage or disadvantage of some person and thus fall within the definitional concept of a 'written instrument'.

In this regard the defendant asserts that, 'A fingerprint card is used for identification Because fingerprints are intimately connected with a person, Not a name.No matter what name is signed to the card, even where no named signed, the result would be Exactly the same.The check would show if a person with those prints had ever been previously arrested.'

Manifestly, the collation, categorization and comparison of a criminal suspect's fingerprints represent an...