Stole and Cashed Checks

[Son-Of-Thomas]

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.

His mother 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 and 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 and that she no longer wanted to press charges, now here is where it gets out of line.

The detective stated that it did not matter whether or not he had paid the sum of the worth of the checks and that it didn't negate the fact that it wasn't "HER" signature on the checks.

Shortly afterwards he received a summons to the court for four counts of Class 4 Felony Forgery, along with a statement saying he should turn him self into police for printings and photo's.

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?

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

What could possibly be done in this situation to sort this mess out.

Thanks!

[aaron]

You'll note, if you investigate, that criminal cases are captioned, "People v Joe Smith," "State v Joe Smith," "Commonwealth v Joe Smith", or something similar. When you break the law the state prosecutes you and, particularly with felonies, the state decides whether or not to drop the charges that have been filed against you.

The son should get a criminal defense lawyer. If she wishes, Mom can make her desired outcome known to the prosecutor and to the defense lawyer.

[Son-Of-Thomas]

He is very well aware of how the situation works when the state is the prosecuting party. However to me it seems that when the mother states that it was not unauthorized forgery to begin with and explains the situation as well as what was promised by the detective to the court.
They wouldn't have significant evidence to convict anymore. I'm merely wondering what a professional opinion on this matter would be.


P.s. I forgot to note earlier that the mother said that when she spoke to the detective the detective promised that she would just scare her son straight but afterwards decided to disregard her promise and file the case for prosecution, to me that seems incredibly foul.

[aaron]

If the mother changes her story every time she talks to the police (first, he stole them; next, it's okay because he paid her back; next, it's okay because she said he could sign her name), they will have cause to suspect that she is not telling them the truth because she is trying to keep her son out of trouble. Depending on her age - this is a crime often committed against the elderly - they may also wonder about his influence on her.

[Son-Of-Thomas]

She is in her early 40's, and from what i've heard is that she initially told the investigating detective that he had stolen them, but had planned to repay her. And that she just wanted to scare him, but the detective decided to go ahead and press for charges.