Case ID: sw_279/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

POMBO v. STATE.
    (No. 9581.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 25, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1926.)
    1. Witnesses <&wkey;37(4)— Bill of exceptions held not to show error in rejection of testimony of character witness.
    Bill of exceptions complaining of rejection of testimony of character witness presents no error, where it failed to show that witness knew other people who knew defendant, or that she knew defendant’s general reputation in community.
    2. Criminal law @=u>l 114(2) — Bill should contain sufficient facts to manifest error complained of.
    Bill of exceptions must contain sufficient facts to manifest error complained of, so that appellate court will not be required to search statement of facts or record otherwise to ascertain if matter complained of is sound.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;9!4, 1166(1) — Variance between indictment and copy served on defendant not ground for new trial or reversal, where not taken advantage of before trial began.
    Variance between the copy of indictment served on defendant and indictment itself is not ground for new trial or reversal on appeal, where no demand was made for service of correct copy until after trial began.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.
    Emilio de Pombo was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John Baskin and Sam Beene, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

From conviction in the criminal district court of Tarrant county of forgery, with punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary, this appeal is taken.

The state’s testimony amply makes out the case. Appellant presented to the cashier of the Bewley Mills, where he was employed as a stenographer, a cheek for $10, made payable to himself. The check was signed by the cashier. The state’s contention was that thereafter appellant raised the check so as that it became and was for $910 by the insertion and writing in of the figure “9” before the figures “10.” The testimony offered in behalf of appellant went no further than to show his general reputation.

We have examined each of the six hills of exception in the record. We are not favored with a brief presenting appellant’s views in regard to them. One of them complains of a variance between the copy of the indictment served upon appellant and the indictment itself. No advantage was sought to be taken of this until the case was on trial, the indictment read, and the plea of appellant entered. Manifestly such bill presents no error.

A bill of exceptions, urging that the check, before same was altered, by arrangement of its figures, would appear in one place to have been made out for 10 cents, and, after it had been altered, would appear to have been made for $9.10, does not seem to us to possess merit. The indictment set out the instrument in hree verba before its alteration and after same was changed. Whether the check itself as offered in testimony showed that it was for 10 cents, and was altered so that it was for $9.10, or whether it was for $10, and was altered so as to be for $910, would seem to make no difference in the gravity of the offense or penalty affixed.

The bill of exceptions complaining of the rejection of the testimony of a character witness who said she had known the accused but a short time, and had not heard anybody discuss his reputation, and which fails to show that she knew other people who knew him or that she knew his general reputation in the community, 'would not seem to present error.

Bill of exceptions No. 5, complaining of the argument of state’s attorney, does not present any facts showing how or in what manner said- argument was improper. The rules in regard to bills of exception are well understood, and it is always held that the bill must contain sufficient facts to manifest the error complained of in order that this court be not compelled to search the statement of facts or the record otherwise to ascertain if the matter complained of in a bill of exceptions be sound.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant insists that the Constitution of this state and its laws guarantee to him the service of a correct copy of the indictment returned against him, under certain conditions, and that the failure of the state to comply with this mandate of the law de-' mands a reversal of the case, whether such failure was taken advantage of at the proper time or not. He cites Revill v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 218 S. W. 1044, and Venn v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 633, 218 S. W. 1060, and other authorities. In Revill’s Case we merely affirmed the proposition that the court’s refusal to have a copy of the indictment served upon the accused before putting him to trial, after he had requested same, was cause for reversal. Substantially the same proposition is in Venn v. State, supra. In the latter ease we said'that such service can in no way be dispensed with if the accused makes the demand.

“It is a constitutional guaranteed right upon which he can insist. That he may waive his right in this matter does not occur when he makes the demand, but if he makes a waiver it must be by himself.”

None of the authorities go to the extent of' holding that, where the accused has been served with a copy of the indictment in some way at variance with the indictment itself, and no demand or request is made for service of a correct copy before the trial begins, this would be cause for a new trial or reversal. In the instant case it is admitted that appellant had been served with a copy of the indigtment before the trial. It is now insisted that, after the trial had begun, appellant discovered that the copy served upon him was at variance with the indictment, and that, when he discovered this, he objected to proceeding any further with the case. No authority known to us holds such procedure as above indicated would justify the trial court in stopping the trial or granting a new trial. We do not think same calls for a reversal of the case on our part.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      ig^For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes