Gear v. State
340 S.W.3d 743
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Gear was convicted in a bench trial of attempted burglary of a habitation.
- Court of Appeals held the evidence legally insufficient to prove Gear intended to commit theft, felony, or assault inside the house.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding a rational fact finder could infer theft intent from entering through the broken window.
- Complainant testified she heard noises, observed Gear entering through a broken window, and Gear ran when confronted.
- Gear testified he did not attempt to break in or steal; he claimed the house was abandoned and he acted without intent to commit a crime.
- Court cited Solis and Padilla to support that untruthful statements can be evidentiary factors; the record showed implausible explanations and flight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the evidence show intent to commit theft or a felony inside the home? | Gear's entry through a broken window supports inferred theft intent. | Entry alone cannot prove inside-the-house intent; lack of direct evidence of intended crime. | Yes; rational finder could infer theft intent from entering through broken window and surrounding circumstances. |
| May untruthful or implausible statements by Gear be considered evidence of guilt? | Implausible and inconsistent statements support guilt in connection with other facts. | Untruthful statements alone do not prove specific intent; cannot alone establish theft intent. | Yes; untruthful statements can contribute as affirmative evidence of guilt under applicable standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solis v. State, 589 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (evidence insufficient to prove theft intent from entry; potential intent inferred requires additional conduct)
- Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d 195 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (untruthful statements may be evidence of guilt when combined with other facts)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (applies rigorous Jackson v. Virginia standard for legal sufficiency)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (reaffirms Jackson v. Virginia standard and cumulative evidence approach)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (legal sufficiency standard: whether rational trier could find each element beyond reasonable doubt)