the amount was changed on a check

[CMacsMum]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
my husband recieved a payroll check that his bosses wife used white out on.. my husband trusted the people so he didnt look at the check he went and cashed it then after 2 months he was arrested for forgery. the wifes signature is on the check and the white out was used on the deductions also. now the wife is saying my husband didnt have the permission to cash the check and she never uses white out.. ive seen his checks and white out was used ont he deductions at least twice.If she handed him the check i would think he had permission to cash it right? anyway they are trying to get him for forgery of a financial institute . he told the d.a. he wanted a lie detector test and wanted the bosses wife to take one also... does he have a chance of beating this since the wife honestly has used white out and gave him the check to cash..

 

[fairisfair]

really... so she used white out on BOTH the numeric and the written amount of the check????
oh... AND on the payroll stub???

give me a break.

oh wait, I know I know, she just used it on the written amount AND the deductions right??? the other part just has an extra number or so.... LOL

 

[Antigone*]

really... so she used white out on BOTH the numeric and the written amount of the check????
oh... AND on the payroll stub???

give me a break.

oh wait, I know I know, she just used it on the written amount AND the deductions right??? the other part just has an extra number or so.... LOL

Fair, the OP must think we fell off the turnip truck .

 

[cyjeff]

Lie detector tests are not admissible in court.

I have to ask the obvious question. Was the altered amount more or less than the amount of the check prior to change?

 

[dcatz]

Lie detector tests are not admissible in court.

At present, that statement is true in the OP’s state. It is overly broad and not true as a matter of law in the majority of federal courts and is not true in the majority of state courts when the offer of proof is pursuant to stipulation.

OP – fairisfair’s sarcastic question can also be legitimate. In civil matters, TX is a comparative negligence state, and the bank is not obligated to negotiate a instrument that has been obviously modified. It seems odd that, in a criminal matter, there is no discussion of the culpability of the financial institution when accepting an altered instrument or the alleged culpability of the wife for making the alteration. There’s a sense that something is missing from the post.