OPINION
PHILLIPS, Judge.
These are appeals from two convictions for violations of the Texas Securities Act. Art. 581 — 29 et seq., V.A.C.S. In Cause No. C72-6655-MI, the appellant was convicted of the sale of an unregistered security. Art. 581 — 29(B), V.A.C.S. In Cause No. C72-6656-MI, the appellant was convicted of selling a security without being a duly registered dealer in securities. Art. 581— 29(A), V.A.C.S. Punishment was assessed [522]*522by the court in each case at four years’ imprisonment.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. The securities in this case were issued by Empresa Azufrera Del Peru S.A., a Peru sulphur mining company. The securities were written wholly in Spanish. A copy of the securities was set out in the indictments and in the court’s charge. During the trial the appellant testified in his own behalf. On cross examination he admitted that the securities were not registered with the Texas Securities Commission and that he was not a registered securities dealer. The appellant testified as follows:
“Q And at the time you made these sales, was this Empresa Azu Frera [sic] Del Peru certificate of stock registered with the Securities Commission of Texas? A No, sir.
⅝ * ¡fc ⅝: % ⅜
Q And when you did, either invite officers or — or sell this investment, you said you were not registered with the Securities Commission or the State of Texas as a stock dealer, or a salesman, or an agent?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were not registered?
A I was not registered.
Q And you have read the first two counts, which says that you were not registered when the security was sold, as a dealer and the second which says that the security was not registered when it was sold, have you looked those over? A Yes, sir.
Q Are those two statements true?
A I was not a dealer, and I was not registered.
* ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ * *
Q And you definitely know that when the note is backed by a bonus, like a stock, that it is a security, don’t you?
A Yes, sir.”
William Davis, an employee of the Texas State Securities Board, corroborated appellant’s statement regarding the Empresa certificates, and testified that the certificates were securities within the meaning of the Texas Securities Act and were required to be registered.
In his first ground of error appellant contends that the trial court failed to conduct the trial wholly in the English language. Appellant argues that in failing to include an English interpretation of the security in the charge, the trial court did not conduct the trial wholly in English. The appellant offered no objection at trial to the court’s charge on this basis. The appellant cites and relies upon Garcia v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 593, 210 S.W.2d 574; however, an examination of that case reveals that it is not decisive of this issue. In Garcia, this Court held that a Spanish speaking defendant was entitled to an interpreter in order to afford him his constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses.
The testimony at trial established that the stock certificates set out in the charge were securities. Further, the definition of a “security” given in the court’s charge appears to comply with Art. 581-4(A), V.A.C.S. In any event, the appellant failed to object to the form of the charge at trial and the error, if any, is waived. Nothing is presented for review. Patterson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 509 S.W.2d 857; Rummel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 509 S.W.2d 630; Cassell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 507 S.W.2d 228. Appellant’s first ground of error is overruled.
In his next ground of error appellant argues that the indictments are fatally defective for failing to state an offense. Appellant contends that since the securities were wholly in Spanish and not translated into English, the indictments fail to allege an offense.1
Appellant filed no motion in the trial court to quash the indictments, and this [523]*523complaint is raised for the first time on appeal. Consequently, only such contentions cognizable under Art. 27.08, V.A.C. C.P., to-wit, that the indictment fails to allege the constituent elements of the offense, are before this Court. American Plant Food Corporation v. State. Tex.Cr.App., 508 S.W.2d 598; Terry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 517 S.W.2d 554; Peterson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 508 S.W.2d 844.
Appellant relies upon Drozda v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 614, 218 S.W.2d 765. In Drozda, a case involving an indictment for libel, this Court held that a defamatory article published in the Bohemian language must be accompanied by an English translation in order to determine whether the published matter was libelous. We do not consider our holding in Drozda persuasive with regard to an indictment alleging securities violations. In a libel indictment, the contents of the published writings necessarily constitute an element of the offense. Without knowing the contents of the writing, one cannot know if the publication is libelous. The same argument does not hold true with regard to a securities violation.2 It is not the language of the instrument which is important, but whether the instrument itself constitutes a security. In the instant case, the instrument clearly falls within the statutory definition of a security. Art. 581-4(A), supra.
In Sharp v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 392 S.W.2d 127, an appeal from a conviction for unlawful offer to sell an unregistered security, we held:
“It is conceded that where a sale is actually consummated it is better pleading to incorporate in the indictment the stock certificate itself.”
While recognizing that it is better pleading to set out the security in haec verba in the indictment, it is not essential in order to charge a violation of the securities law. Sharp v. State, supra; Shappley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 520 S.W.2d 766; Cox v. State,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
PHILLIPS, Judge.
These are appeals from two convictions for violations of the Texas Securities Act. Art. 581 — 29 et seq., V.A.C.S. In Cause No. C72-6655-MI, the appellant was convicted of the sale of an unregistered security. Art. 581 — 29(B), V.A.C.S. In Cause No. C72-6656-MI, the appellant was convicted of selling a security without being a duly registered dealer in securities. Art. 581— 29(A), V.A.C.S. Punishment was assessed [522]*522by the court in each case at four years’ imprisonment.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. The securities in this case were issued by Empresa Azufrera Del Peru S.A., a Peru sulphur mining company. The securities were written wholly in Spanish. A copy of the securities was set out in the indictments and in the court’s charge. During the trial the appellant testified in his own behalf. On cross examination he admitted that the securities were not registered with the Texas Securities Commission and that he was not a registered securities dealer. The appellant testified as follows:
“Q And at the time you made these sales, was this Empresa Azu Frera [sic] Del Peru certificate of stock registered with the Securities Commission of Texas? A No, sir.
⅝ * ¡fc ⅝: % ⅜
Q And when you did, either invite officers or — or sell this investment, you said you were not registered with the Securities Commission or the State of Texas as a stock dealer, or a salesman, or an agent?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were not registered?
A I was not registered.
Q And you have read the first two counts, which says that you were not registered when the security was sold, as a dealer and the second which says that the security was not registered when it was sold, have you looked those over? A Yes, sir.
Q Are those two statements true?
A I was not a dealer, and I was not registered.
* ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ * *
Q And you definitely know that when the note is backed by a bonus, like a stock, that it is a security, don’t you?
A Yes, sir.”
William Davis, an employee of the Texas State Securities Board, corroborated appellant’s statement regarding the Empresa certificates, and testified that the certificates were securities within the meaning of the Texas Securities Act and were required to be registered.
In his first ground of error appellant contends that the trial court failed to conduct the trial wholly in the English language. Appellant argues that in failing to include an English interpretation of the security in the charge, the trial court did not conduct the trial wholly in English. The appellant offered no objection at trial to the court’s charge on this basis. The appellant cites and relies upon Garcia v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 593, 210 S.W.2d 574; however, an examination of that case reveals that it is not decisive of this issue. In Garcia, this Court held that a Spanish speaking defendant was entitled to an interpreter in order to afford him his constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses.
The testimony at trial established that the stock certificates set out in the charge were securities. Further, the definition of a “security” given in the court’s charge appears to comply with Art. 581-4(A), V.A.C.S. In any event, the appellant failed to object to the form of the charge at trial and the error, if any, is waived. Nothing is presented for review. Patterson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 509 S.W.2d 857; Rummel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 509 S.W.2d 630; Cassell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 507 S.W.2d 228. Appellant’s first ground of error is overruled.
In his next ground of error appellant argues that the indictments are fatally defective for failing to state an offense. Appellant contends that since the securities were wholly in Spanish and not translated into English, the indictments fail to allege an offense.1
Appellant filed no motion in the trial court to quash the indictments, and this [523]*523complaint is raised for the first time on appeal. Consequently, only such contentions cognizable under Art. 27.08, V.A.C. C.P., to-wit, that the indictment fails to allege the constituent elements of the offense, are before this Court. American Plant Food Corporation v. State. Tex.Cr.App., 508 S.W.2d 598; Terry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 517 S.W.2d 554; Peterson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 508 S.W.2d 844.
Appellant relies upon Drozda v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 614, 218 S.W.2d 765. In Drozda, a case involving an indictment for libel, this Court held that a defamatory article published in the Bohemian language must be accompanied by an English translation in order to determine whether the published matter was libelous. We do not consider our holding in Drozda persuasive with regard to an indictment alleging securities violations. In a libel indictment, the contents of the published writings necessarily constitute an element of the offense. Without knowing the contents of the writing, one cannot know if the publication is libelous. The same argument does not hold true with regard to a securities violation.2 It is not the language of the instrument which is important, but whether the instrument itself constitutes a security. In the instant case, the instrument clearly falls within the statutory definition of a security. Art. 581-4(A), supra.
In Sharp v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 392 S.W.2d 127, an appeal from a conviction for unlawful offer to sell an unregistered security, we held:
“It is conceded that where a sale is actually consummated it is better pleading to incorporate in the indictment the stock certificate itself.”
While recognizing that it is better pleading to set out the security in haec verba in the indictment, it is not essential in order to charge a violation of the securities law. Sharp v. State, supra; Shappley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 520 S.W.2d 766; Cox v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 523 S.W.2d 695. In the instant case, the State followed the better practice and included a copy of the security in the indictments in haec verba. We hold that the indictments were sufficient to allege the constituent elements of the offenses of unlawful sale of an unregistered security and unlawful sale of a security without being a duly registered securities dealer. Arts. 21.02, 21.04 and 21.11, V.A.C. C.P. Appellant’s second ground of error is overruled.
In his grounds of error three and four appellant contends in Cause No. C72-6656— MI that the indictment is fatally defective and, further, that there is a fatal variance between the allegations of the indictment and the evidence submitted.3 The indictment sets out a copy of the security. The security has the handwritten word “Copy” on its face. The security introduced into evidence does not have this handwritten word “Copy” appearing on its face. Appellant contends that this variance is fatal. Appellant offered no objection to the introduction of the security into evidence at trial. He further contends that it is not [524]*524illegal to sell a copy of a security and consequently the indictment fails to state an offense. He filed no motion to quash the indictment and raises this contention for the first time on appeal. We find appellant’s contentions to be without merit.
Unnecessary words, in an indictment, when not descriptive of that which is legally essential to the validity of an indictment or information, may be rejected as surplusage. Collins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 168; Cohen v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 950; Malazzo v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 308 S.W.2d 29.
In Burrell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 526 S.W.2d 799, this Court noted:
“There is, however a well recognized exception to the general rule discussed above, and that is where the unnecessary matter is descriptive of that which is legally essential to charge a crime it must be proven as alleged, even though needlessly stated. See 13 Texas Law Review 489 (note); 1 Branch’s Ann.P.C., 2d ed., Sec. 518, pp. 491 — 498, and cases there cited.
It is well established that where a person, place or thing necessary to be mentioned in the indictment is described with unnecessary particularity, all circumstances of description must be proven, Smith v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 511, 298 S.W. 286 (1927), and cannot be rejected as surplus-age, for they are thus made essential to the identity. Maples v. State, 124 Tex. Cr.R. 478, 63 S.W.2d 855 (1933). Thus, if the pleader makes unnecessary allegations descriptive of the identity of the offense charged, it is incumbent upon the State to establish such allegations by evidence. McClure v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 650, 296 S.W.2d 263 (1956).”
Consequently, the deciding factor in the instant case is whether the word “Copy” appearing in the body of the indictment is descriptive of that which is legally essential to charge the offense. As discussed previously, it is not the language or wording of a security which defines the nature of a securities violation; rather, it is whether the instrument falls within the definition of a security. The word “Copy” appearing in the body of a security placed in the indictment does not determine its tenor as a security within the meaning of Art. 581 — 4(A). We hold, therefore, that the handwritten word “Copy” appearing in the indictment was not descriptive of the offense charged and may be disregarded as surplusage. Finding no fatal defect in the indictment nor fatal variance in the proof offered at trial, appellant’s final contentions are overruled.
The judgments are affirmed.