The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of forgery.

Relevant Statutes

A person commits the offense of forgery if the person [makes/alters/executes/completes/authenticates] a writing so that it purports to [be/have been] [the act of another who did not authorize that act/executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case/a copy of an original when no such original existed] with the intent to defraud or harm another.

Definitions

Another

“Another” means a person other than the actor.

Actor

“Actor” means a person whose criminal responsibility is in issue in a criminal action.

Harm

“Harm” means anything reasonably regarded as loss, disadvantage, or injury, including harm to another person in whose welfare the person affected is interested.

Writing

A writing includes (1) a printing or any other method of recording information; (2) money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, and trademarks; or (3) symbols of value, right, privilege, or identification.

Intending to Defraud or Harm Another

A person intends to defraud or harm another if it is the person’s conscious objective or desire to defraud or harm another.

Presumption of Intent to Obtain Property or Service

The law provides for a presumption that you may wish to apply in this case. This presumption can apply only if you find the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed money that had been altered or made.

If you find the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant possessed money that had been [include specific manners of forgery] as mentioned above, then you may infer from this fact that the defendant intended to obtain a property or service of a value equal to the total purported value of the forged money. You are not, however, required to infer or find this even if you find that the defendant possessed money that had been [include specific manners of forgery].

If you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant possessed money that had been [include specific manners of forgery], you are not to consider this presumption for any purpose.

If you apply this presumption, you may conclude that the state has proved that the defendant intended to obtain a property or service of a value equal to the total purported value of the forged money. If you do decide to apply the presumption to show the state has proved the defendant intended to obtain a property or service of a value equal to the total purported value of the forged money, you must still decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the state has proved the defendant [insert specific allegations, e.g., altered, made, or executed] a writing so that it appeared to be the act of [name], who did not authorize the act, and the defendant did this with the intent to defraud or harm [name].

If you conclude you cannot apply the presumption or you choose not to apply it, you must still consider whether—without reference to the presumption—the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to obtain property or a service in an amount equal to the allegedly forged funds.

Application of Law to Facts

You must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, [four/five] elements. The elements are that—

1. the defendant, in [county] County, Texas, on or about [date], [insert specific allegations, e.g., altered, made, or executed] a [describe the alleged writing, e.g., check or will], a writing;

2. the defendant did this so that it appeared to be the act of [name];

3. [name] did not authorize the act; [and]

4. the defendant did this with the intent to defraud or harm [name][./; and]

[Include the following if applicable.]

5. the defendant did this to obtain property or a service in an amount of [insert appropriate dollar range from Tex. Penal Code § 32.21(e–1)].

You must all agree on elements 1, 2, 3, [and 4/4, and 5] listed above.

If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of elements 1, 2, 3, [and 4/4, and 5] above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, elements 1, 2, 3, [and 4/4, and 5] listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

[Insert any other instructions raised by the evidence. Then continue with the verdict form found in CPJC CPJC2.1, the general charge.]