
    HOWES v. STATE.
    (No. 11403.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 29, 1928.
    1. Forgery <&wkey;4 — In prosecution for forgery of draft, state was required to establish draft was false instrument in writing, purporting to be act of some person other than defendant (Pen. Code 1925, art. 979). .
    Under Pen. Code 1925, art. 979, in prosecution for forgery of draft, it was necessary for state to establish that draft in question was false instrument in writing, purporting to be act of some person other than defendant.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>563 — Corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence.
    Corpus delicti may be estabhshed by circumstantial evidence.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;535(2) — In establishing corpus delicti, extrajudicial confession may be taken in connection with other facts.
    In establishing corpus delicti, extrajudicial confession may be taken in connection with other facts and circumstances in evidence.
    4. Criminal law <§=w535(l) — Extrajudicial confessions alone are not sufficient to establish corpus delicti. ■
    Extrajudicial confessions, standing alone, are not sufficient proof of corpus delicti.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;535(2) — There must be such extrinsic corroborative circumstances as, taken in connection with extrajudicial confession, produce conviction of guilt beyond reasonable doubt to establish corpus delicti.
    To establish corpus delicti, it is necessary . that there be such extrinsic corroborative circumstances as will, taken in connection with extrajudicial confession, produce conviction of accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
    6. Criminal law <&wkey;535(2) — Evidence supplementing extrajudicial confession need not be conclusive in character to establish corpus delicti.
    Suppletory- evidence which, with extrajudicial confession, establishes corpus delicti, need not be conclusive in character, but jury-may be warranted in convicting, where circumstances related in confession correspond in some points with those proven to exist.
    
      7. Criminal law <&wkey;535(l) — In prosecution for forgery of draft, defendant’s confession that • name signed as drawer of draft, was not his name, held not alone sufficient proof of corpus delicti (Pen. Code 1925, art. 979).
    Under Pen. Code 1925, art. 979, in prosecution for forgery of draft, defendant’s extrajudicial confession that name of drawer, signed to draft, was not his name, without state’s introducing extrinsic facts or circumstances to corroborate it, held insufficient proof of corpus, delicti.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; Geo. L. Davenport, Judge.
    C. B. Howes was ■convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Chastain & Judkins, of Eastland, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is forgery; the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the. evidence.

Omitting the formal parts, appellant’s confession, which was introduced in evidence by the state, was as follows:

“My name is C. B. Howes. My home is in Kansas City. I have not been there for about a couple years.. The last work I did was in California. I worked there for about two weeks for a railroad company. I drew the draft that I deposited in the Bank at Ranger. It. was for $3,854.30, drawn on the Traders’ National Bank of Kansas City, Mo. I signed the name of Jas. B. .Wilson to it. I have not had any account in any Kansas City Bank for about five years. I have never had an account in the name of Jas. B. Wilson anywhere. My account was in my right name, C. B. Howes.. I do not know any one by the name of Jas. B. Wilson, and I did not have authority of any one to sign that name to a draft. I never heard of any one by that name; I just used the name offhand. I knew ■the draft would not- be honored when I left it at the Ranger Bank. Nobody lost anything by reason of my drawing this draft, not a cent.”

In an attempt to corroborate appellant’s confession, the state proved facts as follows: Appellant went to a bank in Ranger with. Cl E. May, who introduced him to the vice president as Mr. Wilson. Appellant stated to said official that he was connected with the Interstate Company, and was going to put in a branch office in Ranger and that he wanted to buy a home and move there. He further stated that he had an account with the Traders’ National Bank of Kansas City in the sum of $3,854.30, and that he wanted to give the Ranger bank a check for said balance. In the presence of the vice president of the bank, appellant drew a draft on the Traders’ National Bank of Kansas City in the sum of $3,854.30, signing it as Jas. B'. Wilson. This draft was received by the Ranger bank for collection, and appellant was given a receipt therefor, showing that it had been received for said purpose. Appellant also signed the name of Jas. B. Wilson at the top of a ledger sheet taken from the ledger of the bank. The draft was not sent to Kansas City. The Ranger bank wired the Traders’ National Bank of Kansas City, and also talked to one of its officials over the telephone. A reply by telegram was received from said Kansas City bank. Shortly thereafter appellant was approached by peace officers and the vice president of the Ranger bank as he was leaving the Gholson Hotel, where he was stopping. These parties asked appellant, “What is your hurry about leaving town?” Appellant replied, “Well, I was going over to Fort Worth.” Shortly after appellant was arrested; the vice president of the Ranger bank found the stub of a check book in appellant’s room. He testified that the words in the stub book were written by the same person who signed the draft in question. Such conclusion was reached by making a comparison of the handwriting. Some of the clothing found in appellant’s room had the initials C. B. H. on them. There were five different sets of initials on the clothing of appellant. An I-P loose-leaf notebook found in appellant’s possession had written in it the name of C. B. Hall, Kansas City, Mo., and Bakersfield, Cal. Appellant did not receive any money on the draft, and made no attempt to give checks on the Ranger bank. The people with whom appellant came in contact in Ranger knew him as Mr. Wilson. Appellant did not take the witness stand in his own behalf, ,nor did he offer any testimony in his defense.

Among other things, it was necessary for the state to establish the fact that the draft in question was a false instrument in writing, purporting to be the act of some person other than appellant. Article 979, P. C. The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence, and in its establishment the extrajudicial confession may be taken in connection with the other facts and circumstances in evidence, Extrajudicial confessions, standing alone, are not- sufficient proof of the corpus delicti. It is necessary that there be such extrinsic corroborative circumstances as will, taken in connection with the confession, produce a conviction of the guilt of the. accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not required that the suppletory evidence be conclusive in its character. A jury may- be warranted in rendering a verdict of guilty where the circumstances related in a confession correspond in some points with those proven to exist. Kugadt v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 681, 44 S. W. 989; Aven v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 155, 253 S. W. 521.

As we -understand the facts hereinbe-fore recited, appellant’s confession alone established the fact that his name was not Jas. B. Wilson. If his name was in fact Jas. B. Wilson, the draft in question was not a false instrument in writing purporting to be the act of another. The failure of the state, therefore, to introduce any extrinsic facts or circumstances corroborative of the statement in appellant’s confession to the effect that his name was not Jas. B. Wilson brings this case within the inhibition of the rule that extrajudicial confessions, standing alone, are not sufficient proof of the corpus delicti.

Because the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court. 
      @=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     
      
      £soFor other cases see same topic and KEY- NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     