Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/Smith v. State

Smith v. State

435 S.W.2d 526, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 852
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 8, 1969
Docket41727
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 435 S.W.2d 526 (Smith 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
Smith v. State, 435 S.W.2d 526, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 852 (Tex. 1969).

Opinion

OPINION

BELCHER, Judge.

The offense is passing as true a forged instrument with two prior convictions for non-capital felonies alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment on the ground that it does not allege and the instrument set out therein does not show that he did any act which purported to be the act of another.

The indictment charges that Lorenzo Smith passed as true to Alfred J. Caviel a forged instrument. The alleged forged instrument set out in the indictment is a Travelers Express Money Order payable to Lorenzo Smith. The purchaser’s name appearing on the right lower portion of the money order is Lorenzo Smith, Jr. There are no averments in the indictment that the alleged instrument purported to be the act of another. There are no explanatory averments in the indictment showing how the money order is in fact a forgery.

The suffix “Jr.” does not form a part of a name. Its addition or omission is immaterial in criminal proceedings. 40 Tex.Jur.2d 381, Sec. 10; Bell v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 64, 184 S.W.2d 635.

In order to be forgery, the instrument must purport to be the act of another. Art. 988, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. “Another,” as used in said article, includes all other persons, real and fictitious, “except the person engaged in the forgery.”

Where the alleged forged instrument bears the same name or signature as that of the accused, it is essential that there be some explanatory averments in the indictment as would show that the instrument was in fact a forgery. 25 Tex.Jur.2d 565, Sec. 49; Carnahan v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 550, 9 S.W.2d 1034; Carter v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 277, 98 S.W.2d 200; Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 379 S.W.2d 326.

The indictment is not sufficient to support the conviction.

*528 The judgment is reversed and the prosecution under the indictment is ordered dismissed.

DOUGLAS, J., not participating.

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

Related

Norris Wayne Smith v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
Bobby James Polston Jr. v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011
Rubeck v. State
61 S.W.3d 741 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Cuba v. State
905 S.W.2d 729 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Herman Lee Kindred v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993
Sandoval v. State
846 S.W.2d 9 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Edwards v. State
835 S.W.2d 660 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Yeager v. State
708 S.W.2d 948 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Salazar v. Tower
683 S.W.2d 797 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Young v. State
529 S.W.2d 542 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1975)
State v. Sweat
504 P.2d 24 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
435 S.W.2d 526, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-texcrimapp-1969.