Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided November 4, 1959No. 30856PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is passing as true a forged instrument in writing; the punishment two years.

The sole ground for reversal relates to the sufficiency of the indictment, the contention being that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to quash; motion for instructed verdict, and motion for new trial.

Appellant’s position is that the instrument set out in the indictment without explanatory averments is insufficient to constitute forgery, hence could not support the count of the indictment predicated upon its passing.

The instrument alleged to be forged is a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cagle v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1898
  2. Chimene v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1937

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Wright v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2000
  2. Sledge v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
  3. Land v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2009
  4. State v. LopezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
  5. Strahan v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2010

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API