Christie Zimmerman Kissinger v. State
06-16-00190-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Victim Judy (69) discovered $2,000 missing from her First National Bank savings account; she did not authorize withdrawals.
- Christie (daughter‑in‑law) admitted to multiple family members that she took the money; later J.D. delivered $2,000 back to Judy via J.D. after about a month.
- Bank records show electronic transfers of $1,000 on Nov 26 and $1,000 on Dec 9, 2014 from Judy’s savings to J.D./Christie’s joint account; Christie had online access to J.D.’s accounts.
- Evidence showed Christie had large gambling losses in 2013–2014 and depleted family accounts; she made other recent transfers from children’s savings to the joint account.
- At trial the jury convicted Christie of theft from an elderly person (>$1,500, < $20,000); she received 4 years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Christie lacked effective consent | State: testimony (Judy) and circumstances show no consent and funds were Judy’s alone | Christie: J.D. was co‑owner; community presumption meant she had J.D.’s effective consent or authority as his spouse | Held: Sufficient evidence supports jury could find Judy sole owner and Christie lacked owner’s or J.D.’s consent |
| Sufficiency of evidence of intent to deprive | State: acts, words, gambling losses, prior similar transfers, and post‑taking denials support intent to deprive | Christie: claimed misunderstanding/temporary borrowing and intent to repay | Held: Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports jury inference Christie intended to deprive at time of taking |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for legal‑sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (directs Texas appellate sufficiency review approach)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (permissible reliance on circumstantial evidence and drawing inferences)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (defines hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
- Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155 (intent to deprive must be assessed from accused’s words and acts)