People v. St. Pierre

• Decision Date: 20 September 1977
• Citation: 91 Misc.2d 783,398 N.Y.S.2d 622
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Roland ST. PIERRE, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 622

398 N.Y.S.2d 622

91 Misc.2d 783

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v.Roland ST. PIERRE, Defendant.

Rensselaer County Court, Special Term.

Sept. 20, 1977.

Pierece H. Russell, Dist. Atty., for the People.

Hershkowitz, Rodriguez & Stillman, P. C., Schenectady, for defendant.

CON. G. CHOLAKIS, Judge.

The defendant, as part of an omnibus motion, has moved that the fifth count of R-4903 which accuses him of Forgery in the Second Degree be dismissed.

It appears that following the defendant's arrest for Driving While Intoxicated and Driving Without a License he falsely identified himself to the arresting authorities as one Kenneth Riley and signed a fingerprint card with the same fictitious name.Following his release from custody, the defendant's true identity was learned and he was thereafter arrested and indicted for the crime of Forgery in the Second Degree in violation of Section 170.10(2) of the Penal Law, which reads as follows:

A person is guilty of forgery in the 2nd 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 represent if completed: * * *

a public record, or an instrument filed or required or authorized by law to be filed in or with a public office or public service.

The defendant argues that a fingerprint card is not a "written instrument".Section 170.00(1) of the Penal Law defines that term as follows:

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.

Relying upon the case of People v. Brown, 84 Misc.2d 267, 375 N.Y.S.2d 992, the defendant argues that a fingerprint card bearing a fictitious name cannot be used to the advantage or disadvantage of some person.In Brownsupra, the court dismissed a charge of Forgery in the Second Degree involving the use of a fictitious name on a fingerprint card.The Court reasoned that the value of the fingerprint card depends not upon the name, be it real or fictitious, but upon an analysis of the fingerprints and therefore concluded that the defendant could not possess the capability of using the card, signed with a fictitious name to his own...