Mathewson verdict affirmed

In a document published Thursday, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Hot Springs District Court Judge, Robert Skar, in an appeal from Paul D. Mathewson.

On June 23, 2016, Mathewson was arraigned for failure to appear in regard to a trespassing ticket. He was held on a $2,000 cash bond. Because the magistrate presided over the arraignment remotely, he sent two copies of the signed bond order to the Hot Springs County Circuit Court; the first electronically via e-mail and the second by mail. The order stated the bond amount to be paid and that it could only be paid in cash. There was also a line on which on which Mr. Mathewson needed to sign and provide his address as an acknowledgment of his understanding of those conditions.

After receiving the order via e-mail, the circuit court clerk printed a copy, file stamped it and took it to Hot Springs County Jail, where Mathewson was being held, to obtain his signature.

However, when signing the bond Mathewson also checked a box marked “Acceptable Bail Bond,” meaning he could contract with a bondsman to satisfy the bond rather than using cash. The box was not previously checked because the bond was ordered as a cash bond.

The circuit court clerk noticed the additional box was checked and compared it to the original sent bond. Mathewson was subsequently charged with felony fraudulently altering a government record. He waived his right to a jury trial and the case proceeded to a bench trial in district court, after which he was found guilty.

Mathewson later filed an appeal, in which he questioned whether or not a printed copy of an unsigned and unfiled bond form qualifies as a government record under Wyoming Statute 6-3-604, and whether he had a requisite intent to commit a violation when he altered the copy of the bond condition order.

According to the opinion of the Wyoming Supreme Court, “Section 6-3-604 includes a plain and unambiguous definition of a government record. That definition encompasses the bond order altered by Mr. Mathewson in this case. Additionally, based on the evidence provided by the State and the irrelevance of Mr. Mathewson’s actions after he made the alteration, it was reasonable for the finder of fact to conclude Mr. Mathewson had the requisite specific intent to act fraudulently — to secure an advantage he was not entitled to — when he committed the act.”