
    SISK v. STATE.
    (No. 11495.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 4, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <§=^992 — Judgment and sentence for forgery were improper, where verdict was for passing forged'instrument.
    Where charge to jury submitted only question of defendant’s guilt of passing a forged instrument, and verdict was in accordance with the charge, it was improper for the court to enter judgment and render sentence for forgery.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;982 — Evidence of defendant’s connection with alleged attempt to pass another check held inadmissible in forgery prdsecution in which defendant sought suspended sentence, notwithstanding defendant’s denial of connection with another check.
    In prosecution for forgery, in which defendant sought a suspended sentence, admission' of testimony concerning defendant’s connection with a man subsequently tried for passing or attempting to pass bad check held error, notwithstanding defendant’s testimony that he had not at any time been connected with any other check, since isolated evidence of separate criminal connection was immaterial on issue of defendant’s good reputation.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;369(4), 982 — In forgery prosecution, testimony concerning defendant’s connection with another forgery held not competent on guilt or suspending sentence.
    In prosecution for forgery, in which defendant sought suspended sentence, testimony concerning defendant’s alleged connection with another forgery case in a different county was inadmissible to show defendant’s guilt or to disprove good reputation on question of suspended sentence, where it was not shown that he had ever been legally charged with, or tried for, that transaction; and admission of such testimony was error requiring reversal.
    Appeal from District Court, Erath County; J. B. Keith, Judge.
    ’ Will Sisk .was convicted of forgery, and he •appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Fred C. Chandler and Ernest W. Belcher, both of Stephenville, for appellant. ■
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, -for the State.
   DATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for forgery; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

In passing, attention is called to the fact that the charge of the court submitted to the jury only the second count in the indictment wherein appellant' was charged with the passing of a forged instrument, and to the fact that the judgment and sentence are for forgery, which is not in consonance with the verdict and the charge of the court. We frequently have to call the attention of trial courts to inaccuracies and errors of this kind, which should be avoided.

Appellant filed an affidavit asking for a suspended sentence, which was denied him by the verdict of the jury. As materially affecting this issue, complaint is made in bills of exception Nos. 1 and 2 of the admission of testimony from witness Riley, and of matters elicited from appellant on cross-examination when he took the witness stand. Bill No. 1 shows that the witness Riley stated that a man named Auguston brought a check into his store at Granbury, Tex., and attempted to cash it. He said that Auguston was accompanied by a man who looked like appellant. Auguston was arrested.and subsequently tried for said offense. When appellant took the witness stand in his own behalf, he was examined and asked relative to this same transaction. This bill is qualified by the trial judge, whp states in effect that he let said testimony in because appellant had testified on direct examination that he had not at any time been connected with any other check. This explanation, in our opinion, fails to remove the error. The fact that appellant affirmed in general terms that he had never been connected with any other check would not authorize the state, when the only issue before the jury was as to appellant’s good reputation, to prove an isolated instance, a separate criminal connection with a totally different cheek from the one involved in the case on trial.

It seems to us that each bill manifests error. Mr: Riley was not a character witness for the defense, but was a witness for the state, and testified directly during the state’s rebuttal, and went into details of another forgery case in a different county in an effort to connect appellant therewith. This could not be done for the purpose of showing appellant’s guilt herein, and apparently such was not its purpose. Nor could such proof be made in order to let the jury conclude appellant did not have a good reputation, and therefore should not be given a suspended sentence. It was not shown that appellant had ever been legally charged with, or tried for, the Granbury transaction.. See Johnson v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 582, 241 S. W. 484; Fountain v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 474, 241 S. W. 489; McKnight v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 355, 265 S. W. 892; Bowman v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 265 S. W. 1038; Waters v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 592, 241 S. W. 496; Moore v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 118, 237 S. W. 931; Pettiett v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 255, 272 S. W. 473. We are unable to say that, had this evidence been excluded, the jury would' not have seen fit to grant appellant a suspended sentence. This is a valuable right, and the admission of the testimony may have deprived appellant thereof. We also desire to call attention to the fact that in the charge of the court herein it is stated that appellant pleaded guilty. In the judgment it is recited that he pleaded not guilty.

For the admission Of the testimony above mentioned, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      @3»For otter oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     