Commonwealth v. Alexander
722 A.2d 698, 1998 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3907 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The act of presenting a stolen credit card is a distinct crime from the act of attempting to forge a signature on a sales receipt; therefore, a defendant can be prosecuted and convicted for both the specific offense of credit card fraud and the general offense of attempted forgery arising from the same transaction.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1996, James Alexander entered the Mid-City Camera Shop and selected a camera, lens, and battery for purchase.
- Alexander handed the salesperson a VISA card bearing the name of Robert L. Vider to pay for the merchandise.
- The salesperson prepared a sales slip, writing the name 'Vider' on top, in preparation for processing the transaction.
- Before the transaction could be completed, Alexander saw a police officer, grabbed the credit card back from the salesperson, and began to leave the store.
- When confronted by Officer Philip Lang, Alexander resisted arrest, shoved the officer, and fled on foot before being apprehended.
- The wife of Robert L. Vider later testified that the card was missing and that she had not given Alexander permission to use it.
Procedural Posture:
- James Alexander was charged with multiple crimes, including forgery and unlawful use of a credit card.
- In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (the trial court), the Commonwealth's motion to amend the forgery charge to attempted forgery was granted.
- Following a waiver trial, the court found Alexander guilty of attempted forgery, unlawful use of credit cards, and other related offenses.
- The trial court sentenced Alexander to a term of imprisonment and probation.
- Alexander, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does convicting a defendant for the general offense of attempted forgery, in addition to the specific offense of unlawful use of credit cards, constitute an error when the defendant only presented the card without signing a sales receipt?
Opinions:
Majority - Cirillo, President Judge Emeritus
No, it does not constitute an error. The use of a fraudulent credit card and the attempted forgery of a corresponding sales slip are distinct criminal acts that can be prosecuted separately. The court reasoned that under the precedent set in Commonwealth v. Brown, the act of presenting the credit card itself constitutes the more specific offense of credit card fraud. The charge of attempted forgery, however, relates to the separate, subsequent act of signing the sales receipt. Alexander took a substantial step toward committing forgery by selecting items, presenting the card, and waiting for the sales slip to be prepared. His abandonment of the crime was not a valid renunciation because it was motivated by the presence of a police officer, which increased the probability of his detection and apprehension.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the legal principle that specific penal statutes take precedence over general ones. It establishes that a single criminal transaction can be parsed into distinct acts, allowing for multiple convictions without violating this principle. By separating the 'presenting of the card' from the 'attempted signing of the slip,' the court preserved the state's ability to prosecute for both credit card fraud and forgery, preventing the more specific statute from completely preempting the general one. This decision reinforces that a defendant's liability can attach to each discrete criminal step taken during an offense.
