Case Name: McBRIDE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-29
Citations: 246 S.W. 394
Docket Number: No. 7070
Parties: McBRIDE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 246
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
McBRIDE v. STATE.
(No. 7070.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 29, 1922.
State’s Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1923.)
I. Forgery <®=>34(3), 44(</2) — Essential that • instrument be introduced in evidence and variance is fatal.
In a prosecution for forgery, unless upon a proper predicate the forged instrument is proved ,by secondary evidence, it is essential that the written instrument described in the indictment be introduced in evidence, and- no conviction could be bad of forgery of indorsement on back of check, where indictmept set out instrument showing that injured party signed the check on its face.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <3=51110(3) — Statement of facts cannot be amended to supply missing matter.
Statement of facts on appeal from a conviction of forgery cannot be amended so as to supply the alleged forged check upon certificate of the trial judge and affidavit of the district attorney and court reporter, to the effect that the check was in truth and in fact introduced in evidence.
Appeal from District Court, Titús County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge. '
D. W. McBride was convicted for forgery and appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Wilkinson & Cook, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for forgery; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The instrument is a check for $6, payable to D. W. McBride, or bearer. It is thus de-sci'ibed in the indictment:
" The act of T. O. Johnson, which said false instrument in writing is to the tenor following: 'Windfield, Texas, 1/11/1921. The First National Bank 88-297 of Mt. Pleasant, Pay to D. W. McBride, or bearer, $6.00/00. six dollars, C. M. McBride. D. W. McBride. T. O. Johnson.' "
No cheek was introduced in evidence. At least, it is not found copied in the statement of facts. In a prosecution for forgery, unless upon a proper predicate the forged instrument is proved by secondary evidence, it is essential that the written instrument described in the indictment be introduced in evidence. Bobbitt v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 315, 128 S. W. 1104; Branch's Ann. Tex. Penal Code, § 1413; Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 243 S. W. 466. Such evidence as is found with reference to the instrument declared upon does not support the averments in the indictment,' descriptive of the alleged forged writing. We gather from the statement of facts that T. O. Johnson did not sign a check, but that his name was indorsed on the back of one. The indorsement was no't a part of the check. Branch's Ann. Tex. Penal Code, § 1397; Mettall v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 216, 232 S. W. 316. If it is the desire to prosecute for forging the name of the indorsor, the indictment should be so framed as to coincide with the evidence to that effect.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<3=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes