Chapa v. State
| Citation | 420 S.W.2d 943 |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40807,40807 |
| Parties | Delfina CHAPA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Gillespie & McClendon, by William J. Gillespie, Lubbock, for appellant.
Fred E. West, County Atty., Jack Lane, Asst. County Atty., Lubbock, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is passing as true a worthless check; the punishment, a fine of $50.00.
In appellant's first ground of error, she contends that the complaint and information are fatally defective because they do not contain allegations that the check was presented and dishonored by the drawee, that the complaint is based on the complaining witness' knowledge or belief, and that the person defrauded by appellant's acts is not named.
Presentment and dishonor are not essential elements of the offense as set forth in Article 567b, Sec. 1, Vernon's Ann.P.C., and need only be alleged where reliance is had on the statutory presumption created in Sec. 2 of such Article. Royal v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 391 S.W.2d 410--411; Watson v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 616, 229 S.W.2d 621. Since the State did not rely upon the statutory presumption, failure to allege presented and dishonor was not error.
Article 15.05, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. provides that allcomplaints will be sufficient, without regard to form, if it meets the substantial requisites set forth therein. The purpose of the complaint is to apprise the accused of the facts surrounding the offense with which he is charged in order to permit him to prepare a defense to such charge. Appellant, from reading the complaint, could ascertain with reasonable certainty with what she was being charged as to to properly prepare a defense. Vallejo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d 113.
Appellant cites Barnes v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 253, 85 S.Ct. 942, 13 L.Ed.2d 818, and Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, in support of her contention that the complaint in the case before us does not measure up to the standards required by the Supreme Court. Barnes and Aguilar established standards for complaints upon which search warrants are issued, and those standards have no application to complaints which serve only as the basis for criminal prosecutions. Cisco v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 411 S.W.2d 547; Vallejo v. State, supra, and Aguirre v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 416 S.W.2d 406.
Appellant next contends that the failure to allege an intent to defraud a specific person renders the complaint void. The pertinent language of the complaint tracks with the language of Article 567b, V.A.P.C., and the form set out in Section 741, Willson's Criminal Forms, Seventh Edition. This Court has held in cases such as this that where a complaint and information are couched in the language of the statute creating the offense charged therein, they would not be void for failure to allege or charge an offense. Jones v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 241, 226 S.W.2d 437; Ex parte Stewart, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 483, 271 S.W.2d 945; and Kuykendall v. State, 160 S.W.2d 525.
Putting aside the question of whether the evidence showed a presentment and dishonor, the evidence did show that the bank had closed appellant's account prior to the time the check was passed, thereby rendering unnecessary proof of presentment and dishonor. Royal v. State, supra, and Watson v. State, supra.
The statute, Article 567b, V.A.P.C., does not require the State to prove that value was received for the check in order to make out an offense of passing a worthless check, and even if such burden was on the State, we feel the burden was discharged by the following testimony of Officer J. T. Wilbanks, an employee of the injured party, Clark's Discount Center:
'Q. (By Mr. Layne, Assistant County Attorney): All right. Then it was within your personal knowledge that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. State
...to arrest. See Wells v. State, 516 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Cisco v. State, 411 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Chapa v. State, 420 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). In Chapa, this court wrote: 'The purpose of the complaint is to apprise the accused of the facts surrounding the offense with ......
-
Knox v. State
...The standards of probable cause to issue a warrant are different from the standards of notice in a charging instrument. Chapa v. State, 420 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). I concur in the result. 1 The holding today should not be confused with those cases which hold that the requisites of an ......
-
Lowery v. State
...purposes of prosecution need not allege probable cause with that specificity necessary for issuance of an arrest warrant. Chapa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 943; Vallejo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d 113. Affidavits filed for issuance of arrest warrants must provide the magistrate ......
-
Academy, Inc. v. Vance
...committed, have specifically been held not to apply to the issuance of an arrest warrant where no search is involved. Chapa v. State, 420 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), Vallejo v. State, 408 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Cr.App. 1966). The Court of Criminal Appeals declared in Chapa "Barnes and Aguilar es......