Legal Opinion

Muniz v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 18, 1910No. 614PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of passing a forged instrument, his punishment being asséssed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

The instrument set up in the indictment was not introduced in evidence. Eoberts, whose name was signed in the instrument, testified that the check shown him for $27.05, dated December 6, 1909, was not signed by him, nor did he authorize anyone to sign it. Appellant denied any knowledge of the instrument or that he cashed it. Appellant could not write.

One of the contentions is that the evidence is not sufficient and that it was necessary…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. McConnell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1919
  2. Houghton and Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API