James Gayle Mcfarland v. State Texas

On original submission the panel reversed appellants conviction for forgery because the indictment failed to allege that the check purported to be the act of another. The state has filed a motion for rehearing urging that the "purport" element of the offense is supplied by the attachment to the indictment of a photocopy of the check. According to the state, the "purport" element is satisfied because the makers name on the check differs from appellants name as alleged in the indictment. The state relies on Jiminez v. State, 552 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).