Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

394 S.W.2d 511

Olson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 13, 1965

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1965-10-13

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1985

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The state’s evidence, including the testimony of Mary Heatherman, employee at Randall’s No. 2, and the picture taken of appellant and of the check, shows that the words and figures ‘Signature not like on file 35-107,’ which appear on the instrument set out in the indictment, were placed on the check offered in evidence after it had been passed and the number A-05413 was placed on such check by Mary Heatherman when she cashed it. The variance is fatal and renders the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Carberry v. State

Relies on Payne v. State · 143 Tex. Crim. 641 - Strong v. State · Harvey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-10-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

WOODLEY, Judge.

¶2Our attention is directed to a variance between the instrument set out in the indictment according to its tenor and alleged to have been forged and the instrument offered in evidence as it appeared at the time it was made and passed by appellant at “Randall’s No. 2” in Houston.

¶3The state’s evidence, including the testimony of Mary Heatherman, employee at Randall’s No. 2, and the picture taken of appellant and of the check, shows that the words and figures “Signature not like on file 35-107”, which appear on the instrument set out in the indictment, were placed on the check offered in evidence after it had been passed and the number A-05413 was placed on such check by Mary Heatherman when she cashed it.

¶4The variance is fatal and renders the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. Payne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 391 S.W.2d 53; Strong v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 641, 160 S.W.2d 923; Harvey v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 213, 104 S.W.2d 26.

¶5Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.

/394/sw2d/511 · .json · Public domain