Martin v. State

194 S.W. 1105, 81 Tex. Crim. 307, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 125
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 9, 1917
DocketNo. 4467.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 S.W. 1105 (Martin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Martin v. State, 194 S.W. 1105, 81 Tex. Crim. 307, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 125 (Tex. 1917).

Opinion

PRENDERGAST, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of knowingly having a forged check in his possession with intent to pass it as true, under article 939, P. 0., and was assessed the lowest punishment.

The sole objection to the court’s charge was fully met by the. court in giving appellant’s special charge on that subject covering the point of objection. The court gave a correct charge properly submitting the question upon the offense of which appellant was found guilty, and also therein gave a correct charge on circumstantial evidence. There is no objection at all to the court’s charge other than as stated above.

There is no bill of exceptions in the record. The sole question is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Appellant contends that it was not and that the State did not disprove as untrue his sworn written testimony in the examining trial, which was introduced by the State.

Appellant did not testify at all on this trial. He plead for a suspended sentence. The sole testimony he introduced was by Mr. Martin,who testified that he had known appellant all his life and that he had never been convicted of a felony in this or any other State and that there was no reason or excuse for him to commit the crime of forgery; that he left home some weeks before his arrest and had some money at the time; he did not know how much; that appellant could have secured what money he needed from him at any time, if necessary.

As the testimony introduced by the State is comparatively not long, we will copy the whole of it.

L. E. Jones testified: “I live in Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Texas, and am the general manager of the corporation known as Jones-Kennedy Dry Goods Company of Wichita Falls. I had a business transaction with the defendant, Fritz Martin, in our store on the 28th day of September, 1916. What led up to the transaction was a girl down in the flats ’phoned up and wanted to buy a coat and we sent some coats down to her place for inspection, and at that time she said that there was a party at her place who would pay for the coat. She selected a coat and sent it back, and this -defendant came in our store *309 and gave me a check on the People’s Bank and Trust Company of Byan, Oklahoma, signed by Fritz Martin. I saw him sign this check and he told me at that time tliat he had the money in the bank to pay same. After I had ’phoned the bank at Byan, Oklahoma, I did not deliver this coat to the girl but held up the same. 1 then had defendant arrested. At the time of his arrest he was in a pool hall. This man who is the defendant in this case is the same party that give me this check for seventy-five ($75) dollars, and is the same party who was arrested in the pool hall.”

W. J. Howard testified: “I am the justice of the peace of precinct Ho. 1, Wichita County, Texas, and as such justice of the peace held the examining trial of this defendant and as this defendant has been duly warned by mé as required by law, he made the following voluntary statement: (Here follows written sworn statement by appellant, which is:)

“ ‘Fritz Martin being advised by W. J. Howard that he did not have to make any statement at all and any statement he made could be used as evidence against him oh the trial of the case concerning which said statement was made did voluntarily make the following statement to W. J. Howard: “I am twenty-seven years of age; I was born in 1889 on the 24th day of October; I am a single man and live at Longview, Texas; I came to Wichita Falls night before last and got here about 12 o’clock.- I intended to go to Seymour to pick cotton when I came here; I am a common laborer and have no profession or trade. I did not give the Jones-Kennedy Dry Goods Company a check yesterday for seventy-five ($75) dollars. I gave no dry goods company a check yesterday for a coat. I have no money in any bank at Byan, Oklahoma. I have no money in the People’s Bank and .Trust Company of Byan, Oklahoma. I deposited $10 in that bank on last Monday. I think it was one day this week I drew that $10 out of the bank. I drew this $10 out day before yesterday. That is the only money I ever had deposited in that bank. That bank issued me a deposit slip for $10, but never issued me a deposit slip for $110. I was in a poker game with F. E. Coats yesterday and he gave me a' check for twenty-seven ($27) dollars. That check for $27 was given to me by F. E. Coats. It was for winnings in a stud poker game. This John Arnett check for $11 was for a gambling debt given me by John Arnett. We had this game near a railroad here. I don’t know what either John Arnett or F. E. Coats do.

“ ‘ “Coats is a little fellow and was in duckings and is a light-headed fellow. He is a man about thirty years, light complected and clean-shaven. John Arnett is a small, black-headed fellow, weight about 130 pounds; he is a man about twenty-five years old, clean-shaven; a man about 5 feet and 6 inches tall.

*310

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rodifer v. State
43 S.W.2d 931 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 S.W. 1105, 81 Tex. Crim. 307, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-texcrimapp-1917.