Under this definition of forgery, the document that has been made or altered does not have to be given or delivered to another person. The mere making of a false document or altering of document to make it false, when the other requisite elements are present, is enough to be an offense.

For instance, if you make a fake check capable of defrauding another person and have the intent to defraud, you can be charged with forgery. This “making” type of forgery requires no actual interaction with any other person.

Two other types of forgery offenses involve knowingly issuing or delivering a false document, or knowingly possessing such a document with the intent to issue or deliver it. Instead of focusing on the making of a false document, these types of forgery charges punish your use or intended use of a false document.

For example, if you knowingly used a fake check to buy merchandise, you could be charged with this “delivery” type of forgery offense. If you knowingly possessed a fake check with which you intended to make a purchase, you could be charged with a “possession with intent to deliver” type of forgery offense.

As can be seen, forgery is a complicated offense. This is because the offense of forgery contains a number of different elements, all of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for you to be found guilty at trial.

To illustrate the complexity of a forgery charge, what follows is the "issues instruction" from the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions. This is the instruction judges give to juries to guide their deliberations in a forgery trial.

---

13.40A Issues In Forgery

Use For Cases Where The Offense Is Alleged To Have Occurred After December 31, 2011

To sustain the charge of forgery, the State must prove the following propositions:

[1] First Proposition: That the defendant knowingly [(made a false document) (altered any document to make it false)] a _________so that it appeared to have been made [(by another) (at another time) (with different provisions) (by authority of one who did not give such authority)]; and [or]

[2] First Proposition: That the defendant knowingly [(issued) (delivered)] a __________which he knew had been made or altered so that it appeared to have been made [(by another) (at another time) (with different provisions) (by authority of one who did not give such authority)]; and [or]

[3] First Proposition: That the defendant knowingly possessed, with intent to issue or deliver a ________________, which he knew had been made or altered so that it appeared to have been made [(by another) (at another time) (with different provisions) (by authority of one who did not give such authority)]; and [or]

[4] First Proposition: That the defendant knowingly and unlawfully used the digital signature of another; and [or]

[5] First Proposition: That the defendant knowingly and unlawfully used the signature device of another to create an electronic signature of that other person; and

Second Proposition: That the defendant did so with an intent to defraud; and

Third Proposition: That the ___________was apparently capable of defrauding another.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If the prosecution fails to prove any one of the elements of the offense at trial, then the defendant should be found not guilty and acquitted of the charge. (See, I.P.I. 13.40A, approved 10-30-15).

---

Using this pattern jury instruction, the jury could be instructed as follows in a particular hypothetical case:

First Proposition: That the defendant knowingly altered any document to make it false, a bank draft, so that it appeared to have been made by another; and Second Proposition: That the defendant did so with an intent to defraud; and Third Proposition: That the bank draft was apparently capable of defrauding another.

In this hypothetical case, if you were the person charged, in order to find you guilty, the jury would have to find all of the following elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that you knowingly altered a bank draft to make it false, (2) so that the bank draft appeared to have been made by another, (3) that you did so with the intent to defraud, and (4) that the bank draft was apparently capable of defrauding another.

As a result, in this hypothetical case, there would be four major elements of the offense of forgery the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. At your trial, every one of the prosecution's witnesses would be subject to cross-examination by the defense, and the existence or non-existence of each element would be relevant.

Although the burden of proof never shifts to you, and you are presumed innocent of the charge, if the defense could show that only one of these elements was missing from the prosecution’s case, a not-guilty verdict should result. In this way, the inherent complexity of a forgery charge, and the large number of allegations that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, can work to your advantage at trial. The more elements the prosecution must prove, the more opportunities exist for the defense to raise reasonable doubt.