Ehrhardt v. State, 334 S.W.3d 849

Ehrhardt was convicted by a jury of theft from Painter for amounts over $1,500 but under $20,000; sentence was two years with probation and $10,000 restitution.
Painter’s brother’s fire recovery paid about $100,000 for repairs; Painter managed the repairs on his behalf under an oral contract with Ehrhardt.
Testimony conflicted: some stated Ehrhardt would complete repairs for $65,000; Ehrhardt testified the contract was indeterminate, paying for time/expenses/percent.
Painter paid Ehrhardt seven installments totaling $86,422.50 before Ehrhardt walked off the job; a different contractor finished the work.
The State alleged two theft theories: deceptive accounting to induce payment and misapplication of bank funds; Ehrhardt argued no theft occurred and requested acquittal on sufficiency grounds.
The court reversed and rendered acquittal, holding the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ehrhardt committed theft either by deception or misappropriation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the evidence prove theft beyond a reasonable doubt?	Ehrhardt committed deception and misappropriation.	No sufficient intent to deprive or proper misapplication shown.	No rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Was there sufficient evidence the first accounting induced Painter’s consent?	Yes, deception induced final payment.	Painter’s cross-examination contradicted inducement.	Insufficient to prove deception induced consent.
Did misappropriation of the bank funds support theft?	Yes, Ehrhardt used funds for personal purposes.	Funds were not proven Painter’s property; no trust instruction given.	Insufficient to sustain theft conviction.
Can post-contract intent to deprive support a theft conviction?	Intent can form after contract.	Cannot deprive property before intent forms.	Post-formation intent insufficient without deprivation.

Baker v. State, 986 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (deception and misapplication discussed; contract context)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (affects sufficiency review; plurality addressing legal vs factual sufficiency)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for legal sufficiency; rational juror reasonable doubt)
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (factual sufficiency standard (discussed as controlled by Brooks))
Cortez v. State, 582 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (intent to deprive must exist to support theft)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (hypothetically correct jury charge; limits on rewriting indictment)
Phillips v. State, 640 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (renegotiation of contract; evidence of overpayment not per se theft)
McClain v. State, 687 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (intent to deprive requires knowledge of lack of consent)
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (circumstantial evidence to infer intent)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury in weighing testimony; reasonable inferences)