Article 123a requires proving five elements for making, drawing, uttering, or delivering worthless checks: (1) the accused made, drew, uttered, or delivered a check to another person; (2) the check was for payment of money; (3) the accused knew at the time there were insufficient funds to cover the check; (4) the check was presented for payment within a reasonable time; and (5) the check was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds. The prosecution must establish each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
The knowledge element proves most critical and can be demonstrated through direct or circumstantial evidence. Prior dishonored checks, bank notices of insufficient funds, or pattern evidence of check kiting support knowledge. The accused’s attempts to prevent presentment or promises to make the check good may indicate awareness of insufficient funds. However, good faith mistakes about account balances or reasonable expectations of deposits before presentment can negate the required mens rea.
Additional considerations include proving the check’s delivery was for obtaining something of value, not merely as security or post-dated payment. The reasonable time requirement typically means the normal banking period unless circumstances suggest delay. Defenses include evidence of expected deposits, bank errors, or identity theft affecting the account. Maximum punishment depends on the check amount, with six months confinement for checks under $1,000 and five years for larger amounts, plus dismissal or dishonorable discharge.