Opinion
No. 9687.
Delivered October 13, 1926.
Forgery — Evidence — Held Insufficient.
Where, on a trial for forgery of a check, the check alleged to be a forgery is not introduced in evidence, and no proof that the check was lost, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction, and the judgment is reversed and remanded. Following Muniz v. State, 59 Tex.Crim. Rep., and other cases cited.
Appeal from the District Court of Hunt County. Tried below before the Hon. J. M. Melson, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of forgery, penalty two years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
B. Q. Evans of Greenville, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Attorney, and Robert M. Lyles, Assistant State's Attorney, for the State.
The offense charged is forgery, and the punishment assessed is two years in the penitentiary.
The indictment charges that the appellant made a false instrument in writing purporting to be the act of another, to-wit, the act of Fred Raynor, and the said false instrument is set out in full in the indictment and shows to be a check drawn against the Hunt County Bank Trust Company, payable to William Stanford for the sum of $11.50.
We have carefully examined the record in the case and find that the facts fail to show that any check was introduced in evidence, and they further fail to describe with any degree of certainty the said check in controversy. It was essential in this case to introduce in evidence the check described in the indictment, there being no proof that the check was lost. Muniz v. State, 59 Tex.Crim. Rep.. McBride v. State, 93 Tex.Crim.
Rep. 257. Dovalina v. State, 14 Tex.Crim. App. 312. This the proof in the instant case wholly fails to do and because of such failure, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The judgment of the district court is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.