Skip to main content

Burks v. State

Citations

  • 24 Tex. Ct. App. 326
  • 6 S.W. 300
  • 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 203

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Former Conviction—Verdict.—The provision of the statute (Code Crim. Proc., art. 712) which requires that in passing upon a special plea (such as a plea of former conviction) interposed as a defense to a prosecution for crime, the verdict shall specially find whether the plea is true or untrue, is mandatory, and can not be eluded upon the ground that the failure of the verdict to so find worked no prejudice to-the accused.</p> <p>2. Same—Forgery.—1The prosecution in this case was for attempting to. pass a forged instrument to one H. The evidence adduced upon the plea of former conviction showed that the instrument described in the two indictments was one and the same, but that the other attempt was to. pass it to another person than H., at a different time and place. Held, that the transactions were different, and constituted different and distinct offenses; wherefore a conviction for the one could not bar a prosecution for the other.</p> <p>3. Same—Evidence—Intent — Charqe of the Court.—As tending to-establish the fraudulent intent of the accused in the transaction for which he was on trial, it was competent for the State to prove that, at a different time and place on the same day, the accused attempted to pass the forged instrument to a different person than the party alleged as the injured person in the indictment. But the failure of the charge to limit and circumscribe the purpose and object of such evidence was fundamental error.</p> <p>4. Same.—It is not only the province, but it is the duty of the trial judge to construe an alleged forged instrument, and to instruct the jury as to its legal effect, had it been genuine. In this case, the court properly charged that, if the alleged forged instrument were genuine, it would create a pecuniary obligation.</p> <p>5. Same.—Objections to the admission in evidence in this case of the alleged forged instrument were properly overruled, inasmuch as the letter S, before the figures $43.00, imports nothing,

Judges: Willson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.