from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda
Scott appeals his forgery conviction. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Alexander Smith of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble
Gentry Brown & Bergmann L.L.P., Des Moines, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
Scott appeals after a jury convicted him of one count of
forgery. His conviction stems from his attempt to purchase a
cell phone with a document made to appear-at a glance-like a
$100 bill. However, just to the right of the likeness of
Benjamin Franklin on the bill's front, it states in large
font: "FOR MOTION PICTURE USE ONLY." Beneath that,
in small font, it states: "THIS NOTE IS NOT LEGAL. IT IS
TO BE USED FOR MOTION PICTURES." The "FOR MOTION
PICTURE USE ONLY" caution is repeated in small font both
below the numeral "100" in the front left corner
and again in a banner affixed to the bottom of the Benjamin
Franklin rendering. Across the top of the back of the bill,
it states, "MOTION PICTURE USE ONLY, " in large
font. The clerk immediately rejected the paper as not being
jury was instructed that in order to find Scott guilty of
forgery, the State was required to prove the following:
1. On or about the 15th day of April, 2016, [Scott] uttered
or possessed a writing.
2. [Scott] knew the writing had been made so it would appear
to be the act of one who did not authorize the act.
3. [Scott] specifically intended to defraud or injure the New
Star Liquor . . . .
4. The writing is or purports to be money.
See Iowa Code § 715A.2(1)(b), (2)(a)(1). Scott
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for
correction of errors at law. See State v.
Leckington, 713 N.W.2d 208, 212-13 (Iowa 2006). The
jury's verdict is binding if supported by substantial
evidence. See id. at 213. Evidence is substantial if
it could convince a rational trier of fact that the defendant
is guilty beyond a ...