From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Quinn v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Feb 28, 1934
69 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934)

Opinion

No. 16452.

Delivered February 28, 1934.

Passing as True Forged Instrument — Evidence.

Conviction for passing as true a forged instrument could not be sustained where there was no evidence in the record that the instrument passed was forged.

Appeal from the District Court of Frio County. Tried below before the Hon. S. B. Carr, Judge.

Appeal from conviction for passing as true a forged instrument; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Reversed and remanded.

The opinion states the case.

Edward Risinger, of Rosenberg, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.


Conviction is for passing as true a forged instrument, the punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

The instrument alleged to have been forged was a check payable to H. J. Turner and signed "Humble Pipe Line Company, Treasurer, Geo. W. Sears, — Assistant Treasurer, C. W. Tulles." It was also averred in the indictment that the instrument was indorsed on the back "H. J. Turner." We are at some loss to determine whether it was intended to charge the forgery of the indorsement, or to charge forgery in the execution of the check itself. If it was claimed that Turner's indorsement was forged, and the purpose was to so charge, we refer to Cochran v. State, 115 Tex.Crim. Rep., 30 S.W.2d 316; Landrum v. State, 118 Tex.Crim. Rep., 42 S.W. 1026.

It is apparent from the record that appellant has no just ground to complain that he was not given a "speedy" trial guaranteed him by the Constitution. The indictment was returned into court on September 7th. Appellant was put to trial the same day, and on the same day the verdict was returned and the judgment of conviction entered. The motion for new trial was overruled on September 8th and sentence pronounced. Indeed it seems that justice was proceeding at such a pace that the necessity of proving that the instrument passed had been forged was entirely overlooked. We discover no word of testimony in the record on that issue. Appellant does complain, and justly so, that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

O'Quinn v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Feb 28, 1934
69 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934)
Case details for

O'Quinn v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES O'QUINN v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Feb 28, 1934

Citations

69 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934)
69 S.W.2d 85

Citing Cases

Brown v. State

There are no averments in the indictment which make it plain that it was the purpose and intent of the…