Court Opinion

ID: 9680894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:40:41.406508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.162365
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge,
concurring.
Although I agree that the judgment should be affirmed, I cannot agree with all of the reasoning of the majority opinion.
In his fourth ground of error appellant contends that the indictment is fatally defective because the security set out in the indictment has the word “Copy” written across the face of the security. And, be-, cause the security introduced in evidence did not have this word appearing on it, appellant contends in his third ground of error that there was a fatal variance between the pleading and the proof.
In his argument supporting his fourth ground of error appellant relies upon Acuff v. State, 429 S.W.2d 888 (Tex.Cr.App.1968), which in its turn relied principally upon the holding in Payne v. State, 391 S.W.2d 53 (Tex.Cr.App.1965). Both of those cases were forgery cases. In Payne, the check set out in the indictment had upon its face the word “FORGERY.” In Acuff, the word “forged” appeared on the face of the check set out in the indictment. In both of those cases we held that such a check could not be the subject of a forgery because it showed on its face that it was a forged instrument.1
Both Acuff and Payne were cases arising under our 1925 Penal Code. In Martinez v. *525State, 551 S.W.2d 735 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), the prosecutions were for forgery under the 1974 Penal Code. In those cases the words “Paid Bexar County National Bank, San Antonio, Texas” appeared on the checks set out in the indictments. That defendant contended in each of his cases that “ ‘the check set out in the indictment could not be the subject of forgery because it shows on its face to have already been honored by the bank upon which it was drawn’ and ‘the check set out by its tenor in the indictment contains notations which the evidence shows were made after the check was passed.’ ” 551 S.W.2d at 735.
The defendant in Martinez relied upon Payne and Acuff. We held that those two cases were not in point, for the following reasons:
“Under former Penal Code Art. 979, V.A.P.C., the instrument which was the subject of the forgery must have been made ‘ . . .in such manner that the false instrument so made (if the same were true) have created, increased, diminished, discharged or defeated any pecuniary obligation, or would have transferred, or in any manner have affected any property whatever.’ Under the former Code, Art. 989, V.A.P.C. defined ‘pecuniary obligation’ as ‘every instrument having money for its object, and every obligation for the breach of which a civil action for damages may be lawfully brought.’
“It follows that the offense of forgery as same is defined under Sec. 32.21, supra, does not require that the instrument in writing be such as to create, increase, diminish, discharge or defeat any pecuniary obligation. See Practice Commentary to Sec. 32.21, supra.
“While an instrument with ‘Forgery’ stamped on it could not have been the subject of forgery under the former Penal Code in that it could not create or defeat a pecuniary obligation, no such requirement is made by Sec. 32.21, supra, under which prosecution was brought in the instant cases. We reject appellant’s contention that instruments with ‘Paid’ on the face of them cannot be the subject of forgery.” 551 S.W.2d at 736-737.
As has been noted, Payne and Acuff dealt with allegedly forged instruments which were set out in haec verba in the indictment. It appears to be appellant’s contention that these forgery cases are analogous to his case (where the indictment charges him with selling a security without being a registered dealer in securities) because the indictment here, like those in Payne and Acuff, sets out a disputed written instrument (in this case the alleged security) in haec verba.
I believe that Acuff and Payne were correctly analyzed and explained in Martinez, and that Martinez also provides the underlying rule which helps decide the issues before us here. The essence of the Martinez holding is that any mistake in setting forth an instrument in haec verba will not vitiate the indictment where the mistake is not material to the offense charged.2
As already noted, the indictment in this case charges appellant with selling a security without being a registered securities dealer. I would hold that the gravamen of this offense is the act of selling without being a registered dealer and that therefore the word “Copy” written across the face of the alleged security was not material to the offense charged. See Shappley v. State, 520 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and compare King v. State, 519 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1975) (gravamen of forgery offenses is the intent to injure or defraud). I would not reach the issue which the majority reaches when it concludes that the word “Copy” in the body of an alleged security does not ever have anything to do with the determination of whether the document is a security. . There are other securities law violations, in some of which we might be compelled to reach a different conclusion because the instrument alleged to be a security was itself of significant materiality to the offense charged.
*526For the reasons stated, I would hold that the indictment was not fundamentally defective and that any variance between the indictment and the proof was not material. I concur in the overruling of appellant’s third and fourth grounds of error in Cause No. 54,002.

. We thus indulged the necessary presumption that these checks were reproduced in the indictment in precisely the same form and language as they appeared when they were passed.

. Thus, it follows that where a fatal variance is alleged — as it has been in the present case— such a mistake will not lead to reversal where the variance between the indictment and the proof is not material. See Webster v. People, 92 N.Y. 422, 425-426 (1883).