Case Name: Walter McConnell v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-06-11
Citations: 85 Tex. Crim. 409
Docket Number: No. 5187
Parties: Walter McConnell v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 409–411

Head Matter:
Walter McConnell v. The State.
No. 5187.
Decided June 11, 1919.
Passing Forged Instrument—Insufficiency of the Evidence—Forged Check— Statement of Facts—Affidavits.
As statement of facts, after expiration of the time for ¡filing, cannot be amended or changed and when the same failed to show that the alleged forged instrument was offered in evidence the conviction cannot be sustained, and this court cannot consider affidavits that the said instrument was in fact introduced in evidence. Following Boyd v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 452, 162 S. W. Rep., 850, and other cases.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. C. A. Pippen.
Appeal from a conviction of passing a forged instrument; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
No brief on file for appellant.
IS. A. Berry, Assistant Attorney General, and J. Willis, District Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, of passing a forged instrument and his punishment fixed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
Prom the record it is reasonably certain that appellant took a false check to the American Exchange National Bank of Dallas and handed it to R. C. Perris, paying teller. Nothing was said by either party. Mr. Perris did not accept the check as true and pay any money thereon, but stepped into another part of the bank and phoned for an officer. When he got back to his own window appellant was gone. This was the transaction. This evidence makes out a ease, if any of attempting to pass such forged instrument. Houston v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 505.
The alleged forged check was not introduced in evidence. This is reversible error. Muniz v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 365; Dovalina v. State, 14 Texas Crim. Rep., 312; Bobbit v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 314.
The Assistant Attorney General moved. to strike out the Statement of facts. Same is a literal reproduction of the answers of the various witnesses and is not in strict accord with the narrative form contemplated by the statute, but we have considered the same.
For the error indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.
Reversed and remanded.