Defendant, in the process of passing a check, forges the payee's name on the back of the check. Should defendant be charged with making the writing, completing the writing, executing the writing, issuing the writing, transferring the writing, registering the transfer of the writing, or what? It apparently depends on what is considered to be "the writing", since arguably the back of the check is a different writing from the front. Also, I have found no recent case describing exactly what the phrase "register the transfer of" might refer to. One tip to share- we are seeing a large number of computer-generated "counterfeit" checks. In my opinion, these should be alleged as "purporting to be" a check under sec. 32.21(d), since if you merely alleged the writing "was a check", there would appear to be a variance. The charging manual does not have this option in its forms. Anyone think it is odd that out of all those interesting words in the statute, "endorse" is missing?

In addition to what you've mentioned, we have one case that involves payments made via the "telephone check" method in which the defendant authorized payment of his debts (long distance charges and credit cards) from the victim's checking account. This is not specifically covered by statutory language either.

As to Endorsements, read the following and update it for a great history on the issue and ideas on how to indict - I've never had any problem:

801 S.W.2d 567

Court of Appeals of Texas,
Dallas.

Gordon S. MAYCOCK, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Nos. 05-89-01236-CR, 05-89-01237-CR, 05-89-01238-CR.
Nov. 30, 1990.