In the court case “State of NM v. Joshua Herrera,” I believe the court sided with Herrera and reversed the previous court decision made. Some of the key facts in the case are: the check was originally written to cash, Herrera added his name in the payee line and he endorsed the check. Herrera’s argument was that he did not change the legal efficacy of the check by adding his name to it. The charge against Herrera was forgery.
According to the textbook, forgery is defined as falsely making or altering any signature or any writing purporting to have any legal efficacy with the intent to injure or defraud. The portion that applies to this case is that it is also considered forgery when changing a genuine document so that its effect was different from the original.
When the check was made payable to cash it makes it a bearer instrument. This makes it payable to anyone possessing the instrument and it is negotiable by transfer alone; the only requirement is delivery. However, when a check is made out to a particular person, it is an order instrument which allows only the intended party to be able to cash it.
A key deciding factor in this case depends on whether Herrera changed the efficacy of the instrument through the addition of his name. The textbook states that an instrument cannot be both bearer and order. It is decided that if both are stated it is payable to the bearer aside from certain circumstances. A special endorsement is one of these circumstances; yet, the check did not include the specific language needed to make the check payable to a specific person.
Therefore, it is seen that since by adding his name, Herrera did not change the legal efficacy of the check which would make it fraudulent. For this reason, I believe the court would overrule and reverse the previous verdict against Herrera committing forgery.