Romero v. State

• Decision Date: 08 February 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 11324.)
• Citation: 2 S.W.2d 462
• Parties: ROMERO v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

2 S.W.2d 462

ROMERO v. STATE.

(No. 11324.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 8, 1928.

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Nueces County; A. W. Cunningham, Judge.

Vicente Romero, alias Ramon Arispe, was convicted of passing a forged instrument, and he appeals. Affirmed.

D. S. Purl and L. Hamilton Lowe, both of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, P. J.

The offense is passing a forged instrument; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

The instrument was a check for $7, in favor of Ramon Arispe, bearing date February 27, 1927, purported to have been drawn on the State National Bank, Corpus Christi, Tex., signed by F. G. Murray, and indorsed by Ramon Arispe; that the check was forged; and that it was passed by the appellant to H. C. Nieman was shown without controversy.

Appellant testified, and explained his possession of the check, thus: He was driving an automobile for hire, and obtained the check from a man who, in company with the appellant's uncle, named Manuel Martinez, was riding in the car. The name of the man from whom he received the check was unknown to the appellant. Appellant claimed that the check was indorsed by Ramon Arispe when it was passed; that he did not write the indorsement, and did not know who did so. Ramon Arispe was called by the state, and testified, disclaiming any connection with, or knowledge of, the check.

According to Nieman, shortly before the check was presented, he was called over the telephone by a person giving his name as Frank Murray, stating:

"I am sending somebody over there with a check, and I wish you would cash it for me."

Soon thereafter the appellant appeared with the check in question, and passed it to Nieman. Murray testified, and denied the issuance of the check or the calling of Nieman over the telephone.

About a month before the transaction, Murray had given the appellant a check for $4.75, which had been cashed by Nieman. The appellant indorsed it in Nieman's presence. The check was introduced in evidence for the purpose of comparison of the appellant's handwriting in the signature on the indorsement with that which appeared upon the alleged forged check. The complaint of the introduction of the genuine check for the purpose stated is not deemed meritorious. The writing of the appellant's name upon the back of the genuine check was proved by the direct evidence of Nieman, and conceded by the appellant. The rule of evidence which, under such circumstances, sanctions the receipt in evidence of the indorsement of the genuine check, is supported by many court decisions and text-writers. See Hughes v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 294, 129 S. W. 837; Phillips v. State, 6 Tex. App. 364; and numerous decisions collated in Branch's Ann. Tex. P. C. § 1141, subd. 3; Underhill's Crim. Ev. (3d Ed.) § 195, note 93.

The prosecution asked a witness if he had other people identify the appellant as having given forged instruments. The court sustained the objection to the question, and instructed the jury to disregard it. The bill shows no error.

Appellant sought a new trial upon the ground that the jury in their deliberations considered and discussed the failure of the appellant to introduce certain witnesses, and upon the...