Geick v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1342
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- June 2005 search of appellant Geick's parents' property in Austin County yielded stolen machinery, including a bulldozer.
- August 2005 grand jury indicted Geick; November 2008 indictment amended to allege theft by deception with property value $20,000–$100,000.
- February 2009 trial: four witnesses testified; none stated how Geick acquired the bulldozer; Phillips testified the bulldozer belonged to his company and was stolen.
- Geick and spouse testified they purchased the bulldozer from Clint Hampton with installments; no receipts produced.
- Application paragraph of the jury charge was not limited to deception; it described theft by appropriating without consent with intent to deprive.
- Geick was convicted as charged in the indictment; Court of Appeals acquitted, and the Court granted review on whether deception needed proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must deception be proved when indictment alleges theft by deception? | Geick argues State must prove deception as charged. | Geick contends the alleged deception is a definitional aid, not an element to prove. | Yes; deception must be proved as pled. |
| Do statutory definitions pledged in the indictment become elements for sufficiency review? | Geick asserts pled definitions are elements the State must prove. | Geick argues definitions are mere definitions, not required to be proven if not elements. | Definitions pled become elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Cr.App.1997) (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency via hypothetically correct jury charge)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex.Cr.App.2001) (Chinese Menu approach; distinguishing elements vs. definitions in sufficiency review)
- Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex.Cr.App.2011) (due process requires proof of the exact statutory elements pled when alternatives exist)
- Planter v. State, 9 S.W.3d 156 (Tex.Cr.App.1999) (evidence supporting other statutory methods does not support conviction when not alleged)
- Thomas v. State, 753 S.W.2d 688 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (when alleging lack of consent, State must prove lack of consent as pled; deception cannot substitute)