Chance of Conviction? Please READ!

First off, I live in Tempe, Arizona (United States)

Secondly, Okay, heres the scoop.

A couple months ago a friend of mine took a total of four checks of his mother's each for about a couple hundred dollars and wrote her signature on them and cashed them.

After His mother became aware of the stolen checks she notified the bank, had the funds returned and in order to scare him called the police and had detectives sent to his house under the guise that he had stolen them and forged her signature.

The detectives showed up and told him about the crimes he had commited, accosted him, and then told him that he should get a lawyer.

Shortly, after the Mother called the detective explaining the situation saying that he had payed her back for the checks, that the bank had removed his funds, and that she no longer wanted to press charges because the entire point was to scare the son straight... now here is where the fun stuff starts.

The detective stated that it did not matter whether or not he had paid the sum of the worth of the checks, that it the funds had been returned. That it didn't negate the fact that it wasn't "HER" signature on the checks. Even though the detective had promised merely to scare the son she went ahead and filed the case with the prosecutors office.

Shortly afterwards he received a summons to the court for four counts of Class 4 Felony Forgery charges, (One for each check.) along with a statement saying he should turn him self into police for printings and photographs of himself.

Here is what I was wondering....

How in the world can the police still press charges even though the Mother has said that it was all taken care of and that the sums had been repaid? Stating that it was okay for the son to take the money just that he should of had her sign the checks and she knew nowhere else to turn to teach the man a lesson? I mean, I'm aware in this situation that the "STATE" is pressing the charges but is it likely they will receive any conviction
If his mother attends the preliminary court hearing and explains the situation? I would think that with the situation explained the state would not have enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict, and that the charges would be dropped.

What could possibly be done in this situation to sort this mess out before someone ends up in prison over this!?

Please respond ASAP Thanks!
Reply With Quote

Son-Of-Thomas said:

How in the world can the police still press charges even though the Mother has said that it was all taken care of and that the sums had been repaid?

Click to expand...

Because the forgery has happened even if restitution was made.

Stating that it was okay for the son to take the money just that he should of had her sign the checks and she knew nowhere else to turn to teach the man a lesson?

Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time deciphering the above sentence. But saying that it he had permission to draw the on the account might fly in court, of course, it contradicts her earlier statements.

If his mother attends the preliminary court hearing and explains the situation? I would think that with the situation explained the state would not have enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict, and that the charges would be dropped.

Click to expand...

If she explains the situation truthfully, there would be enough to convict. Whether the prosecutor decides to proceed with an uncooperative victim, is uncertain.

Your friend and his mom needs a lawyer. Your friend needs one for the charges, and his mom for filing a false police report (possibly). A lawyer could try to get the charge dismissed or at least seek a plea baragin to a misdemeanor with suspended imposition or something. The mother was not the only victim. The bank is out cost (labor, expenses) as a result of this fraud. How old is your friend / friend's mom?

And, why do people think that police don't take calls seriously?

My guess is that Mom was reimbursed - by the bank (actually, us as the costs are passed along to us).


OP: yes, the Prosecutor will probably (& should) proceed with prosecution.

The crime was completed when he forged (1. felony) and cashed (2. felony- theft) the checks.
Also, he can be charged with #3 felony - burglary (entering the bank with intention to commit felony therein).

It shouldn't be very hard for the Prosecutor to convict him, with or without Mom's 'help'.

From my understanding there was an agreement made between the mother and the detective that it was simply just to be a scenario in which the police scared the son, but the detective went back on her word and decided to move to prosecution.

The mother is in her 40's and the son is 19. The mother was yes reimbursed by the bank, and also by the son. (additional compenstation was paid.)

FlyingRon said:

Because the forgery has happened even if restitution was made.n.

Click to expand...

The whole situation is very complicated, I know. The initial "forgery" however was not so much forgery as it was the son borrowing money. (He was allowed to cash the checks, with permission it just was not her signature on the checks.) Sure this contradicts her statements, but like i said earlier it seemed that her and the detective had a deal which was broken after the initial questioning.

garrula lingua said:

My guess is that Mom was reimbursed - by the bank (actually, us as the costs are passed along to us).

Click to expand...

Like i said earlier, the bank withdrew funds from his account and he then additionally proceeded to pay extra compensation.

garrula lingua;1616956 OP: yes said:

You have to understand, even though it wasn't the mothers signatures on the checks she allowed him to cash them, and also the son is not being charged with any felony theft and burglary or anything like that. just 4 counts of forgery. which would indicate that he signed without permission and cashed them no?

Click to expand...

A couple months ago a friend of mine took a total of four checks of his mother's each for about a couple hundred dollars and wrote her signature on them and cashed them....After His mother became aware of the stolen checks she notified the bank

Click to expand...

He was allowed to cash the checks, with permission it just was not her signature on the checks.

Click to expand...

First you say she wasn't aware of what he was doing, and she eventually "discovered" the "stolen" checks. Then you say he had her permission to take the checks.

It sounds like he didn't have her permission at all. It sounds like he did, in fact, steal and cash her checks. When she discovered what he did, she tried to use the police to scare him without actually getting him in any real trouble. What she failed to realize, however, is that the police aren't there to be used as her tool to enforce family discipline--they're there to enforce the law. Now that she's opened this can of worms and lost control of the situation, she's trying to back-peddle and say that her son did have her permission to cash those checks. If he had her permission, why would she have called the police in the first place?

The bottom line is that the mother can't "make a deal" with the police to compel them to do their jobs only to the extent that she wants them to.

And, by the way--you keep saying the situation is "very complicated", but it's really not.

This guy stole $800 from his mother. She wanted to scare him but she didn't want him to get in any real trouble. Now that she has put the legal system into play she realizes she can't control that like she thought she could, so now she's trying claim he had her permission all along. Not complicated at all.

With any luck, the son will learn not to steal money and the mother will learn the police aren't her toys.

And by the way--the detective may have been just playing along with the "just scare him" scenario so the mother would be more likely to provide useful information. If the mother had clammed up once she realized what was going to happen to her son that wouldn't have done the detective any good. It's called effective law enforcement.