Acuff v. State, 41531
| Decision Date | 30 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41531,41531 |
| Citation | 433 S.W.2d 902 |
| Parties | Ralph Gilbert ACUFF, Appellant, Alias O. L. Billups, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
T. D. Wells, Paris, for appellant.
Jim N. Thompson, County Atty., Paris, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is unlawfully passing as true a forged instrument; the punishment, five (5) years in the Texas Department of Corrections.
The record reflects that appellant represented himself at his trial after he waived his right to counsel despite the trial court's repeated offers to appoint counsel. He is now represented on appeal by court appointed counsel.
Ray Wunsch, the complaining witness, testified that on September 17, 1966, appellant entered a men's store in Paris, Texas, representing himself to be O. L. Billups. After purchasing a wallet and a 'British Sterling' set, he gave to the complaining witness a cashier's draft drawn on the Farmers State Bank of Clarendon, Texas, signed by S. N. Morrison, and payable to O. L. Billups in the sum of $155.00. Such draft was cashed by Wunsch after it had been endorsed 'O. L. Billups' by the appellant. Wunsch then deducted the price of the merchandise ($13.77) from the draft and gave the balance in cash to the appellant.
H. M. Breedlove, Vice President of the Farmers State Bank of Clarendon, who had lived in that city 31 years, testified that his bank issued only cashier's checks not drafts; that S. N. Morrison was not an authorized signature; that no person by that name was employed by the bank nor lived in Clarendon or Donley County and that no account was carried in his bank in that name; that the instrument in question had not been issued by his bank and was a forgery; that he did not know an O. L. Billups.
The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, acknowledged several prior felony convictions involving the passing of forged instruments, but denied passing the instrument in question or ever having seen Wunsch.
In his first ground of error appellant complains of the admission into evidence of State's Exhibit No. 2, a sales slip prepared by the complaining witness at the time the check in question was passed. The record reflects no objection to the admission of such evidence, and we perceive no error.
In his second ground of error appellant complains the prosecution did not prove O. L. Billups to be non-existent. It is observed, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tibbetts v. State
...to the same in the absence of a showing of a 'particularized need.' Bryant v. State, 423 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Acuff v. State,433 S.W.2d 902 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Garcia v. State, 454 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), and Brown v. State, 475 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). There was no such ......
-
Garcia v. State
...'particularized need' for the grand jury testimony, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the same. Acuff v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 433 S.W.2d 902; 4 Branch's Anno. P.C., 2nd ed., Sec. 103, p. 116. In fact, the procedure followed by the careful trial judge is to be We do......
-
Solomon v. State
...in the absence of showing of a particularized need. Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973. Acuff v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 433 S.W.2d 902; McDuff v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,431 S.W.2d 547; Bryant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 320. And no error was committed by ove......
-
Austin v. State, 42619
...429 S.W.2d 471; Hanes v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 394, 341 S.W.2d 428; Bryant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 320; Acuff v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 433 S.W.2d 902. In this state of the record, there was no error is refusing the The appellant's fourth ground is that, 'The trial Court erred in rebu......