Please visit my author page at amazon.com
State of Minnesota v. Steven Paul Jonsgaard. MN criminal law
Over the course of two weeks, someone was writing checks at Midtown Foods in Winona County, Minnesota, using someone else's checkbook. The store time stamped the checks, and by reviewing surveillance footage, they got pictures of the person writing the checks. They showed the photos around, and they were identified as being of the defendant.
The prosecutor had to work with Minn. Stat. 609.631, subd. 2, which criminalizes the following:
(1) falsely makes or alters a check so that it purports to have been made by another or by the maker under an assumed or fictitious name, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by the authority of one who did not give authority; or (2) falsely endorses or alters a check so that it purports to have been endorsed by another.
The prosecutor charged the defendant under the second half of the statute, and alleged that he had falsely endorsed a check. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to 24 months. He appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on various grounds, including that the evidence did not show that he "endorsed" any check.
The appeals court agreed and reversed the conviction. The state argued that one dictionary definition of "endorse" is to sign anywhere on a document. Therefore, it argued, the defendant's forged signature on the front of the check was sufficient. But the defendant argued, and the court agreed, that the word "endorse" had a long-standing special meaning when it came to checks. It quoted the UCC, Black's law dictionary, and other sources, which made clear that an "endorsement" of a check is a signature on the back of a check that was previously written. In this case, the only endorsement was made by the store. Therefore, the defendant had not endorsed a check, falsely or otherwise.
For this reason, the appeals court reversed the conviction.
No. A19-1612 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2020)
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his
low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case
summaries
Copyright 2020, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com