## Facts

- King Wilson possessed a check drawn for $2.50, stated both in written words in the body and as “2.50” in the upper corner figures.
- The check also contained a printed/stamped limitation indicating it was for “ten dollars or less.”
- Wilson added a “1” before the corner figures “2.50,” making the corner figures read “12.50,” while leaving the written amount in the body unchanged at $2.50.
- Wilson attempted to negotiate the altered check.
- Wilson was indicted, tried, and convicted for attempt to commit forgery in a Mississippi circuit court.

## Issues

1. Whether changing only the numerical corner figures on a check, while leaving the written amount unchanged, is a material alteration sufficient to constitute forgery.
2. Whether a defendant can be convicted of attempt to commit forgery when the completed act, even if fully accomplished as intended, would not be forgery as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded.
- The court held that altering only the corner figures was not a material alteration because the written amount controls the instrument’s legal effect.
- Because the completed conduct would not constitute forgery, Wilson could not be convicted of attempt to commit forgery.

## Legal Principles

- Forgery requires a false making or a materially altering of a writing, with intent to defraud, such that the instrument apparently has legal efficacy to create liability.
- In construing an instrument for a forgery prosecution, courts apply the same rules used in civil/commercial contexts to determine the instrument’s legal import.
- When a check’s written amount conflicts with numerical figures, the written amount controls; altering subordinate figures alone is legally immaterial if it does not change the instrument’s enforceable obligation.
- Attempt liability requires conduct that, if completed as intended, would constitute the substantive offense; there is no attempt when the fully realized act is not criminal under the charged offense.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that changing only a check’s corner figures, while leaving the written amount intact, does not materially alter the check for purposes of forgery; since the act could not amount to forgery even if fully carried out, it could not support a conviction for attempt to commit forgery.


Wilson v. State, 85 Miss. 687, 38 So. 46 (Miss. 1905)