Stephens v. State
| Decision Date | 28 October 1896 |
| Parties | STEPHENS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Montague county; D. E. Barrett, Judge.
John C. Stephens was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Reversed.
W. W. Cook and G. W. Alcorn, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of forgery, and given two years in the penitentiary, and prosecutes this appeal.
The indictment is in two counts,—one for forgery, and the second for passing the same forged instrument. On the trial the court submitted only the first count. This was tantamount to an election by the state to rely upon the first count, and a dismissal as to the second. See Parks v. State, 29 Tex. App. 597, 16 S. W. 532. Omitting the formal parts, with reference to the offense of forgery, the indictment is as follows: That appellant, "without lawful authority, and with intent to injure and defraud, did willfully and fraudulently make a false and forged instrument in writing, purporting to be the act of another, to wit, the act of G. F. Green, which said false and forged instrument is of the tenor following, to wit." Then follows the instrument in hæc verba, signed, Motion in arrest of judgment was made by appellant, because there was a variance between the purport and tenor clauses, in this: that the purport clause alleges the forged instrument to be the act of G. F. Green alone, while the tenor clause alleges and sets forth the instrument to be the act of John C. Stephens and G. F. Green. This was overruled. Upon this action of the court error is assigned. This ruling of the court was error. The identical question was fully discussed in the case of Campbell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 32 S. W. 899. It was there held, on an indictment similar to this one, that such a variance was fatal to the indictment. This case was also followed in three cases of Fite v. State (decided at Dallas term, 1896) 34 S. W. 921, 922. For the error indicated, the judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garza v. State, 63005
...(1911); Tracy v. State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. 37, 90 S.W. 308 (1905); Parks v. State, 46 Tex.Cr.R. 100, 79 S.W. 301 (1904); Stephens v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 386, 37 S.W. 425 (1896); Moore v. State, 631 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.App.Amarillo, No P.D.R.1982); Ex parte Scelles, 511 S.W.2d 300 Recently, in Moore v......
-
Ex parte McAfee
...§ 1638, p. 450, and numerous cases there cited. (Emphasis supplied.) This has long been the law in Texas. Stephens v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 386, 37 S.W. 425 (App.1896), cited Parks v. State, 29 Tex.App. 597, 16 S.W. 532 (1891), and held that the submission to the jury by the trial court of on......
-
The State v. Clark
... ... because, first, there was no evidence to support the second ... count, and because, second, even if there were the court did ... not instruct on that count and this is tantamount to an ... election by the State of an abandonment of the second count ... and a reliance on the first. [ Stephens v. State, 36 ... Tex. Crim. 386, 37 S.W. 425.] ... 3. The ... correctness of the denial of the application for a ... continuance will now be discussed. The defendant was arrested ... in August, 1897; he pleaded to the indictment on the ... twenty-seventh day of September, ... ...
-
McGee v. State
...tenor clause discloses an instrument signed by more than one, a variance is held apparent from the indictment itself. Stephens v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 386, 37 S. W. 425; Tracy v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 37, 90 S. W. 308; Crayton v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 73 S. W. 1046; Gibbons v. State, 3......