Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Panel questions whether repeated check-cashing supports knowledge and intent in forgery appeal
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Michael Pardee (24P140) the panel examined whether repeated cashing of eight checks — some after the victim’s death and with memo lines listing services not performed — suffices under recent decisions (Oliver, Scordino) to establish knowledge of forgery or intent to defraud.
The appellate panel heard argument in Commonwealth v. Michael Pardee, docket number 24P140, about whether the evidence that eight checks were cashed at a check-cashing facility was sufficient to prove knowledge of forgery or intent to defraud.
Why it matters
Judges noted the court’s recent decisions in Oliver and Scordino, which limit convictions when identification and knowledge must be inferred from ordinary business practices. Defense counsel argued that those cases control here because the evidence rests on business practice in the check-cashing…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
