Daryl Joe v. State, 620 S.W.3d 834

Appellant Daryl Joe was indicted for cargo theft under Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(b)(1) for allegedly "hooking up" his truck to a JB Hunt trailer containing 145 mattresses/box springs (value about $42,900, including the trailer).
Corsicana Bedding witnesses testified the goods had been loaded, sealed (yellow seal), and a bill of lading issued, transferring possession to the carrier; the trailer was staged in the shipping yard awaiting transport.
Warehouse supervisor Juan Carlos Perez photographed Joe’s blue Volvo semi hooked up to the trailer; Perez testified Joe had engaged the fifth wheel and was attempting to connect air lines and lights when caught.
Defense pointed out Joe had not physically connected brake lines or raised trailer landing gear, arguing at most an attempted hookup and disputing possession and the status of the goods as "cargo."
The trial court convicted Joe; on appeal the Tenth Court of Appeals reviewed sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia and related Texas authorities and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mattresses/box springs were "cargo"/stolen cargo under § 31.18(a)(1)	State: Goods were loaded, sealed, and a bill of lading issued; possession transferred to carrier and the shipment was "moving in commerce."	Joe: Items were not properly "cargo"/stolen cargo.	Court: Affirmed they were cargo; bill of lading/seals showed transfer and goods were in commerce.
Whether Joe possessed the goods by "hooking up" to the trailer	State: Photo and witness testimony showed Joe hooked up the fifth wheel and attempted connections, demonstrating actual care, custody, control (possession).	Joe: He did not complete hookup (no brake lines/lifts), so at most an attempt, not possession.	Court: Possession may be proved by such conduct; asportation not required; evidence sufficient to infer possession.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence review standard)
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (use of the hypothetically correct jury charge to measure sufficiency)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (definition and scope of the hypothetically correct jury charge)
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence; connection must be more than fortuitous)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient when cumulatively strong)
Hawkins v. State, 214 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. App. — Waco 2007) (asportation is not an element of statutory theft)