Lexplug logoLexplug

Lewis v. Superior Court

Court of Appeals of California, Third District
217 Cal. App. 3d 379; 265 Cal. Rptr. 855 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The crime of forgery under California Penal Code § 470 requires an intent to defraud a person of a legal right, which is generally a pecuniary or property right. A writing that merely seeks to deceive or persuade someone on a political matter, without implicating such a legal right, cannot be the subject of a forgery prosecution.


Facts:

  • John Lewis was a member of the California Assembly.
  • Lewis directed his staff to draft and mail letters supporting fellow Republican candidates for state office.
  • The letters were printed on stationery bearing the letterhead 'Ronald Reagan—The White House' and appeared to be signed by the former President.
  • President Reagan did not sign the letters, nor did he authorize the use of his signature.
  • Lewis ordered the letters mailed even after he was advised that permission to use the President's name and signature had been denied.
  • The letters were mailed to registered voters in various legislative districts and included a plea for the voter to cast a ballot for the endorsed candidate.

Procedural Posture:

  • A grand jury indicted John Lewis on one count of forgery in violation of California Penal Code § 470.
  • Lewis moved in the superior court, the court of first instance, to set aside the indictment under Penal Code § 995.
  • The superior court denied Lewis's motion.
  • Lewis (petitioner) then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the California Court of Appeal to prevent the superior court (respondent) from proceeding with the trial.

Locked

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 fabricating a signature on a political endorsement letter sent to voters, with the intent to influence their votes, constitute the crime of forgery under California Penal Code § 470, which requires an 'intent to prejudice, damage, or defraud any person'?


Opinions:

Majority - Blease, J.

No. A letter bearing a false signature urging people to vote for a candidate for public office is not an instrument which could 'prejudice, damage, or defraud' any person as those terms are used in Penal Code § 470. Forgery under § 470 is limited by its common law origins to writings that, if genuine, would have legal efficacy or could form the foundation of a legal liability, which generally involves pecuniary or property rights. An attempt to persuade another to vote does not implicate such a right. The court's holding is based on the controlling precedent of People v. Wong Sam, which established that a false instrument intended to influence a government official's judgment, but not affecting a legal right, was not forgery. The terms 'prejudice' and 'damage' within the statute are interpreted as being synonymous with 'defraud' in this context, all pointing to the impairment of a legal right, rather than general deception.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the common law limitation on the crime of forgery, clarifying that the 'intent to defraud' element requires more than mere deception. It establishes that political campaign materials, even if they contain false endorsements, are not subject to prosecution under general forgery statutes unless they involve the deprivation of a tangible property or legal right. This case effectively distinguishes between criminal fraud and political 'dirty tricks,' directing that such misconduct should be addressed by specific election-related statutes. It underscores the principle that criminal statutes rooted in common law will be interpreted according to their historical scope unless the legislature explicitly broadens them.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lewis v. Superior Court (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"