Legal Opinion

Criner v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 16, 1921No. 6110PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for forgery and punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years.

The instrument purports to be signed “J. H. Campbell, 1514 La. Ave.” As offered in evidence, under the signature, there appears the term “a satisfied customer.” This does not constitute a variance. The words “a satisfied customer” are not a part of the instrument and it is not necessary to incorporate them. Bishop’s New Crim. Procedure, Sec. 407; Young v. State, 40 S. W. Rep., 793; Branch’s Ann. Penal Code, Sec. 1409; Hennessy v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App.,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Red v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1898
  2. Wright v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1911

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. McClure v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925
  2. Whitlock v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1960
  3. Cottrell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
  4. Norton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
  5. Pate v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1962

3 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