Gerald Christopher Zuliani v. State
03-13-00493-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 15, 2015Background
- Victim Stephanie Running escaped her fiancé Gerald Zuliani on Oct. 25, 2012 after days of repeated violent assaults; she left behind an Allstate insurance check payable to her for $6,308.17.
- Zuliani retrieved the check from the mailbox and deposited it the same day into a seldom-used joint Wells Fargo savings account he shared with Running; the check was not endorsed by Running.
- About a week later, Glennis Richter (Zuliani’s girlfriend) was added to the Wells Fargo account via a Relationship Change Application and then withdrew the account funds.
- At trial Zuliani was convicted of multiple offenses (assault, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, strangulation, and theft); the Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions except theft, which it reversed and rendered an acquittal for insufficiency of evidence.
- The State moved for rehearing, arguing the court misapplied the Jackson v. Virginia standard, failed to view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and overlooked reasonable inferences (e.g., Richter acted with Zuliani’s authority or with his consent to use his debit card, and later acted as his agent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Zuliani) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft (intent to deprive) | Zuliani intended to deprive Running: deposit without consent, add Richter (power of attorney language on bank form), Richter used Zuliani’s debit card to withdraw funds, later POA documents at another credit union support agency inference. | Zuliani deposited into a joint account accessible to Running, sought Running’s permission by text/voicemail, did not personally withdraw funds, and signature on Relationship Change Application is not his; no evidence he authorized Richter. | Court of Appeals: reversal and rendered acquittal for theft (insufficient evidence of intent to deprive). State seeks rehearing arguing the court misapplied Jackson and disregarded proper inferences. |
| Whether appellate court applied Jackson v. Virginia correctly | State: court failed to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and ignored reasonable inferences (e.g., POA language, bank investigator testimony, debit-card use). | Zuliani: documentary and signature inconsistencies undermine State’s theory; absence of direct evidence of his authorization precludes reasonable juror finding of intent. | Court of Appeals applied Jackson and found insufficiency as to authorization and intent; State disputes that application and requests rehearing. |
| Authorization/agency for adding Richter to account | State: Relationship Change Application (Richter signed Zuliani’s name and wrote “Power of Attorney”) and bank acceptance permit inference Zuliani empowered Richter; subsequent United Heritage POA documents reinforce agency inference. | Zuliani: his signature does not appear on the Wells Fargo form and no independent proof of his grant of authority; plaintiff failed to introduce evidence of actual authorization at time of account change. | Court of Appeals credited absence of Zuliani’s signature on Wells Fargo form and found insufficient evidence that he authorized the addition; State argues the form and attendant circumstances suffice under Jackson. |
| Use of debit card and circumstantial inferences | State: surveillance shows Zuliani depositing the check with a woman who appears to be Richter; ATM records show withdrawals made with Zuliani’s card number, supporting inference Zuliani permitted Richter’s access. | Zuliani: use of joint account and lack of withdrawal by him undermine intent to deprive; contested identification and possible alternative explanations for card use. | Court of Appeals found evidence insufficient to establish intent to deprive at the time of deposit; State disputes and urges Court to consider debit-card evidence as supporting intent and authorization. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate legal‑sufficiency review — evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (framework for sufficiency review under Jackson)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate deference to jury inferences in sufficiency review)
- Peterson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (intent-to-deprive assessed at time of taking; intent inferred from words and acts)
- Schneider v. State, 440 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (application of Jackson standard in Texas appellate practice)