Chapman v. State
| Decision Date | 11 March 1896 |
| Parties | CHAPMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Travis county; R. E. Brooks, Judge.
William M. Chapman was convicted of passing a forged instrument, and appeals. Affirmed
Walton & Hill, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted for passing as true an alleged forged instrument in writing, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary; and from the judgment and sentence of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal.
The only question raised by appellant is that the indictment charging that the alleged forged instrument which was passed purported to be the act of one William R. Robinson, and, not alleging that said William R. Robinson was a fictitious person, it was not competent for the state to prove the fact that William R. Robinson was a fictitious person. There is no statement of facts in this case, but the court, in its charge, instructs the jury, in effect, "that the state relies for a conviction in this case upon the fact that William R. Robinson, the person purporting to have signed the instrument set out in the indictment, was a fictitious, and not a real, person," and then proceeds to charge the jury, among other things, "that if they believe that the said William R. Robinson was a fictitious person, and that appellant passed the said instrument knowing it to be a forgery, to convict him." We assume that the charge of the court was predicated upon testimony properly in the case. That it was proper to admit such testimony on an indictment drawn in the shape of the one before us was decided by this court in the case of Johnson v. State (decided at the Tyler term, 1895) 33 S. W. 231. The questions here presented were thoroughly considered in said case, and we adhere to the rule there laid down. The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Stegner
...character of the maker be made, it is not error to admit evidence of same. [Johnson v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 271, 33 S.W. 231; Chapman v. State, 34 S.W. 621.] The case State v. Minton, 116 Mo. 605, 22 S.W. 808, cited by appellant to sustain the contention that the information should have ave......
-
State v. Stegner
...maker be made, it is not error to admit evidence of same. Johnson v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. loc. cit. 271, 33 S. W. 231; Chapman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 34 S. W. 621. The case of State v. Minton, 116 Mo. 605, 22 S. W. 808, cited by appellant to sustain the contention that the information sh......
-
Thompson v. State, 19080.
...117, 29 S.W. 478; Williams v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 32 S.W. 532; Johnson v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 271, 272, 33 S.W. 231; Chapman v. State (Tex. Cr.App.) 34 S.W. 621; Davis v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 218, 39 S.W. 296; Howard v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 494, 36 S.W. 475, 66 Am.St.Rep. 812; Spicer v. State......
-
Rubio v. State
...on the question here presented. It has been held under our statute that the name of a fictitious person can be forged. Chapman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 34 S. W. 621; Johnson v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 271, 33 S. W. 231. It seems that it is not necessary to allege that the party signing the fo......