Demetrius Shaun Lee v. the State of Texas, 676 S.W.3d 912

Lee, a Midland police officer, was charged with abuse of official capacity for running 25 law‑enforcement database searches (Jan 2017–Apr 2018) on six people using department computers only accessible via officer logins.
Department policy forbade personal use; each search is logged to the officer’s unit history. Internal affairs found searches lacked legitimate law‑enforcement purpose; four of the six subjects testified at trial.
One subject (Lee’s wife, Cler) testified she asked Lee to check her driving record; other testifying subjects denied permission. Lee told investigators some searches were at others’ requests or to locate addresses; he gave no explanation for two searches.
The State charged Lee under Tex. Penal Code § 39.02(a)(2) for misusing government computers, alleging the value of the use was $750–$2,500 (Class A misdemeanor).
At trial the State did not prove economic value of the computer use; the State later conceded computer value ≠ value of use and suggested reformation to a Class C misdemeanor, but proceeded on intent theories at trial.
The court of appeals found insufficient evidence that Lee intended to obtain a benefit, harm, or defraud anyone and reversed and rendered an acquittal.

Issue	State's Argument	Lee's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: intent to obtain a benefit	Cler benefited economically by learning status of an outstanding ticket (time‑savings => monetary benefit)	No evidence Lee sought economic gain or conferred economic benefit to himself; Cler’s alleged benefit speculative	Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove Lee intended to obtain or confer an economic benefit
Sufficiency: intent to harm	Accessing confidential info itself shows intent to harm or disadvantage subjects	No testimony or evidence that Lee intended to harm or that any subject suffered loss or disadvantage	Reversed: no evidence of intent to harm any subject
Sufficiency: intent to defraud	(State conceded it had no proof on defraud)	No evidence of intent to defraud	Reversed: no evidence of intent to defraud
Value of computer use	Initially equated value of use with computer value; later conceded mismatch and proposed reformation to Class C	Challenged sufficiency on value element at trial	State conceded computer value did not prove value of use; court did not sustain conviction on value alone and rendered acquittal due to lack of intent

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson standard and deference to jury credibility determinations)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can alone sustain conviction)
Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (same; cumulative proof rule)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (consider all evidence admitted on sufficiency review)
Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (no "divide and conquer"—must assess cumulative force of evidence)
Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (same)
Becker‑Ross v. State, 595 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020) (example of § 39.02 economic‑benefit cases)
Talamantez v. State, 829 S.W.2d 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (public official misusing government property for relatives as economic benefit)