Desmond Juwon Woods v. State
06-15-00068-CR
Tex. Crim. App.Dec 1, 2015Background
- Defendant Desmon Juwon Woods convicted by jury of state-jail felony theft (copper) and concurrently convicted of criminal mischief for $27,000 damage to four chicken houses; sentenced to 2 years state jail (theft) and 8 years TDCJ‑ID (mischief, concurrent).
- Indictment alleged theft of copper "tubing," but the property actually taken was copper electrical wire; State contends the description was surplusage under the theft statute.
- Evidence presented: owner discovered wiring stripped between mid‑November and Dec 24, 2012; foam insulation trail led ~900 yards to Woods’ residence; burn pile at Woods’ yard contained matching insulation.
- Scrap‑yard receipts (Nov 20–Dec 24) showed Woods sold ~400+ lbs of #1 copper during the relevant period; receipts identified Woods (ID photocopy) and truck description matching vehicle at his residence.
- Scrap‑yard owner and experts testified the sold material was #1 copper (more than 50% copper) and that insulation is burned off before sale; defendant’s counsel acknowledged the stolen wire was #1 copper during trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft of copper (state‑jail felony) | State: receipts, foam trail, burn pile, witness ID and admission provide direct and circumstantial evidence that Woods stole and sold the copper | Woods: challenges legal sufficiency; points to variance between indictment ("tubing") and actual evidence (wire) | Court: Evidence legally sufficient; variance was immaterial surplusage and may be disregarded under hypothetically correct jury charge review |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sets standard for reviewing legal sufficiency by viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Gollithar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (immaterial variances in an indictment are disregarded in sufficiency review)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (distinguishes statutory and non‑statutory allegations; non‑statutory allegations that vary are immaterial)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (describes the hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
- Spencer v. State, 867 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1993) (criticizes adherence to obsolete variance rules in indictments)
- Horton v. State, 395 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (discusses scope of hypothetically correct jury charge and sufficiency review)