California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gonzales, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 814, 6 Cal.App.5th 1067 (Cal. App. 2016):
6 When viewed in the context of forgery, the word "value" as used in section 473(b) must correspond to the stated value of the instrument as opposed to its inherent value (People v. Cuellar (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 833, 838839, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 252 [instrument has only nominal inherent value for purposes of theft ] ) in order to avoid the absurd consequences of a monetary limit that would not have any meaning (Flannery v. Prentice (2001) 26 Cal.4th 572, 578, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 809, 28 P.3d 860 [statutory constructions should avoid producing absurd consequences] ).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.