Christopher Ray Johnson v. State
425 S.W.3d 516
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Johnson was convicted of forging a money order and sentenced to seven years’ confinement.
- Prosecution alleged the money order was altered to remove Karr’s and The Pointe’s names; the payor was altered to Johnson’s name.
- Karr deposited the money order into The Pointe’s night drop; The Pointe did not receive it, leading to eviction and rent losses.
- Investigators found the forged money order cashable at an HEB, with Johnson cashing it about 36 hours after theft.
- Investigators did not locate or interview the payor (Shoust) and did not verify existence of that payor.
- Court reversed and remanded for acquittal, finding insufficient evidence of intent to defraud under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was legally sufficient evidence of intent to defraud | Johnson’s possession/presentation alone does not prove intent to defraud | State argues circumstantial evidence supports intent to defraud | Insufficient evidence; acquittal rendered (reversal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks v. State, 746 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (possession of forged instrument alone not evidence of intent to defraud)
- Stuebgen v. State, 547 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (insufficient evidence of knowledge of forgery under similar facts)
- Crittenden v. State, 671 S.W.2d 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (no proof defendant knew instrument was forged)
- Palmer v. State, 735 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1987) (unexplained possession of a forged instrument can show knowledge of forgery)
- Huntley v. State, 4 S.W.3d 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (multiple factors needed to infer intent to defraud; not present here)
- Williams v. State, 688 S.W.2d 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (intent to defraud may be inferred from knowledge the instrument is forged)