Defendants who induced a mentally infirm person to sign documents were not guilty of forgery where they did not misrepresent the nature of the documents. On appeal from the granting of the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995, the People argued that since the procuring of a genuine signature to an instrument by fraudulent representations constitutes forgery, the defendants should be tried on forgery charges where they created a “false reality” for the victim by taking advantage of his mental impairment. The Court of Appeal disagreed, noting that no element of trick or fraud existed in the case because the defendants accurately explained to the victim the nature of the documents they induced him to sign.