Madeley v. State, 29295
| Decision Date | 04 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 29295,29295 |
| Citation | 307 S.W.2d 584,165 Tex.Crim. 351 |
| Parties | Reggie MADELEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The offense is forgery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for 3 1/2 years.
The state's evidence shows that on the 23rd day of November, 1956 an American Express Company money order for the sum of $6 was issued by the Elite Super Market in the City of Houston. That on or about the 5th day of December, 1956 the appellant presented and passed the money order to a jeweler in the City of Alvin after it had been altered and the amount changed to $86 by adding the number '8' before the number '6' and the word 'eighty' before the word 'six' and obliterating with ink the words 'not payable for more than Ten Dollars'.
Appellant's written statement made after his arrest to Deputy Sheriff Q. C. Dawson was introduced into evidence by the State, without objection, after the Deputy testified that the appellant was duly warned and that he had freely and voluntarily made the statement. In this statement appellant admitted that he purchased the money order in question together with three others from the Elite Super Market in Houston and, after raising the amount to $86, he cashed them at various stores including a Jewelry Store in the City of Alvin.
The state's testimony further shows that appellant gave a specimen of his handwriting which was examined by E. N. Martin, handwriting expert of the Texas Department of Public Safety, and compared with the altered writings on the money order. Martin testified that in his opinion the writings were by the same person and a different ink was used in writing the word 'eighty' and figure '8'.
As a witness in his own behalf appellant testified that he did not given a voluntary statement but gave the statement because he had been mistreated by the officers and was afraid. Appellant, in his testimony, also repudiated the statements made in his written confession, testified they were not true and denied that he had purchased, altered and passed the money order in question.
The court in his charge submitted the issue of the voluntariness of appellant's written statement and instructed the jury that if they believed that it was not freely and voluntarily made or if they had reasonable doubt thereof, then they would wholly disregard it.
App...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...to the presentment of the indictment and not barred by limitation. Abston v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 253 S.W.2d 41 and Madeley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 307 S.W.2d 584. Appellant further insists that the evidence is insufficient because the testimony of the prosecuting witness was not corrobo......
-
Neal v. State
... ... Ranger v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 352 S.W.2d 275; Mitchell v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 606, 330 S.W.2d 459; Madeley v. State, 165 S.W.2d 351, 307 S.W.2d 584 ... Appellant's remaining contention, that the trial court committed error in failing to ... ...
-
Ex parte Greenwood, 29469
... ... Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State ... WOODLEY, Judge ... [165 ... ...
-
Taylor v. State
...date alleged, so long as the date is anterior to the presentment of the indictment and not barred by limitation." Madeley v. State, 307 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957). Finally, Taylor complains that "no evidence connects [Taylor] to either the gun or the bullets that shot [Acosta]" ......