Manoocher Thomas Rowshan v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2987
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Rowshan was convicted by a jury of forgery, a class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a $2,000 fine.
- At a 2009 divorce proceeding, Judge Jackson granted a mutual temporary restraining order and advised Rowshan to file a protective order if needed.
- Rowshan attached Exhibit A to a filing, titled as a notice of hearing and order on his protective-motion, but it added language binding non-parties and allowing entry to remove property.
- Pirkle and Judge Jackson discovered Exhibit A resembled Judge Jackson’s notice yet included unauthorized text, leading to concern it was fraudulent.
- Rowshan was charged with forgery; after trial, the court overruled his sufficiency challenge and admitted extraneous-offense evidence; the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for forgery | Rowshan argues no intent to defraud or harm shown | State asserts intent can be inferred from conduct and the document’s wording | Evidence sufficient; rational jury could find intent to defraud or harm |
| Admissibility of extraneous offenses | State improperly admitted other bad acts to prove character | Rowshan opened the door by testifying about his history; impeachment allowed | Admission proper; no error in admitting prior acts to impeach Rowshan |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. State, 337 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (sufficiency standard for appellate review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetical correct jury charge standard for sufficiency)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can support guilt equally with direct evidence)