Commonwealth v. Green

Affirming a forgery conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101(a)(3), the en banc Superior Court reaffirmed that the knowledge element of uttering a forged writing may be established by wholly circumstantial evidence and that a reviewing court must look to the totality of the defendant’s conduct to infer fraudulent intent. The Court distinguished Commonwealth v. Gibson — which had held that mere possession of a forged check made payable to cash was insufficient — explaining that knowledge may be inferred from the combination of circumstances surrounding the transaction, including the payee designation, the absence of any legitimate connection between the defendant and the drawer, and the defendant’s own statements at the time of police contact. A vigorous dissent would have held that proof the instrument was forged, coupled with proof of intent to defraud, does not by itself satisfy the statute’s distinct mens rea requirement that the defendant knew the writing was forged in a manner specified in subsections (1) or (2).