Campbell v. State
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 600
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Brian Campbell was convicted of arson and felony criminal mischief for burning an Arby’s; both convictions carried 10-year sentences.
- At trial the property owner, Bob Bollinger, testified his insurer paid approximately $400,000 for the loss and that rebuilding an Arby’s at the site would cost about $1,000,000; a fire marshal’s testimony on value was excluded.
- The jury convicted on both damage and destruction theories; Campbell appealed only the criminal-mischief (pecuniary-loss) conviction.
- The court of appeals acquitted Campbell of criminal mischief, concluding the owner’s testimony alone was insufficient to prove pecuniary loss over $200,000.
- The State sought discretionary review; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review on whether insurance payments and an owner’s replacement-cost estimate can prove pecuniary loss.
- The Court reinstated the trial court’s criminal-mischief conviction, holding the evidence was sufficient under either a damage or destruction theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Campbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an owner’s evidence of an insurance payment is sufficient to prove pecuniary loss by damage (cost of repair) | Insurance payment (~$400,000) is admissible and sufficient to show cost of repair; Elomary and English support insurance-payment proof | Owner’s unsworn estimate (and exclusion of fire marshal) is equivocal and amounts to unsupported lay opinion | Held: Yes. Owner’s unobjected-to testimony about insurer payment sufficed to prove cost of repair under Elomary/Elomary clarified by Holz |
| Whether an owner’s testimony that replacement would cost ~$1,000,000 is sufficient to prove pecuniary loss by destruction (fair market or replacement value) | Owner’s testimony as to replacement cost is an estimate of fair market value; Sullivan permits owner testimony to serve as fair market or replacement value evidence | Owner’s estimate is speculative and not proven by additional evidence | Held: Yes. Owner’s replacement-cost estimate is admissible to prove fair market/replacement value under Sullivan; conviction sustainable on either theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Holz v. State, 320 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (clarifies that unsupported lay opinions are insufficient but expert testimony is not required to prove repair costs)
- Elomary v. State, 796 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (insurance adjuster’s testimony about insurer payment can prove cost of repair)
- Sullivan v. State, 701 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (owner’s testimony estimating property value may be treated as fair market or replacement value)
- Anderson v. State, 416 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (verdict upheld if legally sufficient under any theory authorized by the charge)
- Jimenez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (amount paid by insurer can be evidence of fair market value)
- English v. State, 171 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (insurance-payment evidence may support repair-cost proof)