Dudley v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 1900 |
| Citation | 58 S.W. 111 |
| Parties | DUDLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Knox county; S. I. Newton, Judge.
W. E. Dudley was convicted of forging a school certificate, and appeals. Affirmed.
W. M. Moore and Glasgow & Kenan, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of forging a school certificate, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Bill No. 1 was reserved to the action of the court permitting the state to prove the contents of a letter written by Landrum, county judge, to defendant, in regard to this forgery, on the ground that no predicate had been laid for its introduction. The bill also shows the letter was written by Landrum, and conveyed by Thomas to appellant, and that appellant received said letter. The whereabouts of the letter was unknown to witness. We believe this was a sufficient predicate. It was placed in the hands of the defendant, and was not shown to have left his possession. This, in our opinion, authorized the introduction of the contents of the letter. The point is not raised that notice to produce the letter was not served upon appellant.
Landrum also testified that the certificate shown him was No. 6,112. This was objected to because the indictment did not attempt to set forth this number on the certificate. The indictment did not undertake to set forth the instrument by its tenor, and the grand jury alleges sufficient reason for not doing so. It was only undertaken to plead the substance of the forged certificate. We believe this was not error. The certificate was fully identified as the one forged.
Bill No. 3 states that the state offered in evidence a certified copy of the record of the office of the state superintendent of public instruction. This copy is not set forth in the bill. There are various grounds urged to its introduction, but these are mainly matters of fact, not verified in the bill as being true. They are simply stated as grounds. It has been frequently held that the simple statement of grounds of objection does not verify the truth of said statements. As presented, this bill is entirely too indefinite. The same may be said of Bills Nos. 4 and 5, in regard to what purports to be an extract from the record of the county judge of Knox county.
Bill No. 6 was reserved to that portion of the court's charge which informed the jury that any person who shall unlawfully and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chorn v. State
...the substance be proved. See Cyc. of Law & Proc. vol. 25, p. 1627; Gonzales v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 508, 21 S. W. 253; Dudley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 58 S. W. 111. From an examination of the statement of facts, we learn that the substance of the search warrant and the affidavit as comport......
-
Skiles v. State
...§§ 207-211; Chorn v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. Rep. 521, 298 S. W. 292; Gonzales v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. Rep. 508, 21 S. W. 253; Dudley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 58 S. W. 111. The sufficiency of the predicate for the introduction of evidence obtained under a search warrant is for the trial court, an......