James 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 real money.
The 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 conviction.
We 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 reasonable doubt. See id. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. See id.
"Where a writing is invalid on its face, it cannot be the subject of forgery, for the reason that it has no legal tendency to effect a fraud ...." State v. Pierce , 8 Iowa 231, 231 (1859) ; accord State v. Johnson , 26 Iowa 407, 418 (1869). If the writing is not capable of deceiving, its utterance does not constitute an offense. See 36 Am. Jur. 2d Forgery § 26. Although the forged instrument need not be perfect in its resemblance to the instrument it is intended to represent, it must bear "such a resemblance to the document as may deceive a person of reasonable and ordinary observation or business capacity although experts or persons of experience could not be deceived by it." Id.
Although similar enough to United States currency to pass for it at a distance or without inspection, the bill tendered here did not purport to be legal tender. In addition to numerous other features that distinguish it from legal tender,1 the bill states numerous times on its face that it is for "motion picture use only" and is not legal. It does not purport to be money. Because the requirement that the writing purports to be money was not satisfied, there is insufficient evidence to support Scott's conviction. Accordingly, we vacate Scott's sentence, reverse his conviction, and remand for dismissal of the charge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.