Case Name: McCONNELL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-05-07
Citations: 212 S.W. 498
Docket Number: No. 5187
Parties: McCONNELL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 212
Pages: 498–499

Head Matter:
(85 Tex. Cr. R. 409)
McCONNELL v. STATE.
(No. 5187.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 7, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 11, 1919.)
1. Forgery <&wkey;19 — Passing Forges Instrument — Attempt.
One who presents a false check to a paying teller, and disappears when the teller steps into another part of the bank, without accepting the check or paying money thereon, and calls an officer, is guilty of attempting to pass a forged instrument.
2. Forgery . &wkey;44(%) — Passing Forged Check — Introduction oe Check in Evidence.
In prosecution for pasing a forged check, state’s failure to introduce the alleged forged check in evidence constitutes reversible error.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal Law &wkey;>1110(7) — Appeal — Statement oe Facts.
When a statement of facts fails to contain any fact, essential to a conviction, a recital in the charge that such fact is admitted will not supply the omission.
4. Criminal Law <&wkey;1112 — Appeal—Attacking Statement oe Facts.
Ex parte affidavits will not be considered as attacking or assailing the correctness of the statement of facts.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
Walter McConnell was convicted of passing a forged instrument, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
McCutcheon & Church, of Dallas, for appellant.
J. WUllis Pierson, Cr. Dist. Atty., of Dallas, and E. B. Hendricks and E. A. Berry, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
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.
From 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. Ferris, paying teller. Nothing was said by either party. Mr. Ferris 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 case, if any, of attempting to pass such forged instrument. Houston v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 128 S. W. 618.
The alleged forged check was not introduced in evidence. This is reversible error. Muniz v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 365, 128 S. W. 1104; Dovalina v. State, 14 Tex. App. 312; Bobbitt v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 314, 128 S. W. 1104.
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.
tíSsjfor other rases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes