Barton v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34965,34965 |
| Citation | 361 S.W.2d 716,172 Tex.Crim. 600 |
| Parties | Tommy BARTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Miller & Miller by Louis Dayne Miller Graham, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, state's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is forgery; the punishment, two years.
At the outset, we observe that there were at least three material variances between the indictment and the purportedly forged instrument which was introduced in evidence. The trial court overruled the objection to the introduction of the instrument and later declined to withdraw it from the jury's consideration. In this he fell into error. Recently, in Williams v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 545, 301 S.W.2d 107, we said:
See also Webb v. State, 39 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 47 S.W. 356, and 25 Tex.Juris.2d, Sec. 65, p. 585, note 12.
The injured party testified that one Jerry Fields came to his filling station in the city of Olney, told him his name was Jerry Cook and he wanted some gasoline, but that he refused to extend him credit. He stated that Fields later returned with appellant, whom he represented to be his oil field boss or driller, a Mr. Hall. He stated that upon appellant's assurance that he would stand good for the gasoline he sold Fields $5.77 worth of gasoline and oil and that Fields signed the ticket for the same with the name James Cook. He stated that appellant was present at the time the ticket was made and the name signed thereto. In brief, this is the State's case.
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he was in Olney on the day in question attending his wife who was a patient in the hospital; that Fields, whom he had known for some time, came to the hospital and asked that he accompany him to the filling station and vouch for him; that he did so and 'stood good for Jerry Fields gasoline.' He denied that he was introduced as Mr. Hall and stated that he left the station before the ticket was prepared and signed. He stated that he did not know Jerry Fields was going to sign the name James Cook to the ticket or that he did so. Requested charges Nos. 2, 3 and 9 would have instructed the jury to acquit unless they found that appellant knew Fields was going to sign a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. State
...a converse charge on an affirmative defense. The court cited Hitchcock v. State, 388 S.W.2d 428 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Barton v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 361 S.W.2d 716 (1962); Patterson v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 121, 297 S.W.2d 183 In Sanders v. State, 707 S.W.2d 78 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), it was po......
-
Carrillo v. State
...on a defensive issue only if the issue is raised by the evidence. Cerda v. State, 557 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Barton v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 361 S.W.2d 716 (1962). While appellant testified that he gave Chapa money to pay for postage, he did not testify, and there is no other evi......
-
Kwallek v. State
...People v. Zachery, 31 A.D.2d 732, 297 N.Y.S.2d 183 (1968); State v. Kerley, 246 N.C. 157, 97 S.E.2d 876 (1957); Barton v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 361 S.W.2d 716 (1962); and Ward v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 564, 138 S.E.2d 293 (1964).5 It is well established that the accused must register tim......
-
Wilson v. State
...raised by the evidence. Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 541; Loftin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 366 S.W.2d 940; Barton v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 361 S.W.2d 716. The majority today abolish that rule by holding, in effect, that if the jury is instructed on the presumption of innocen......