Gloria Sandone v. State
394 S.W.3d 788
Tex. App.2013Background
- Gloria Sandone was charged with Class B theft for property valued between $50 and $500 from Eric Butler at a JC Penney in Lewisville (June 2010).
- Butler testified Sandone selected and concealed four ties in a bag after quickly selecting a tie and mixing with other clothing.
- At the register Sandone exchanged the bagged clothes for clothes she had on her arm; Butler identified the theft and notified police.
- Officer Chang Chi investigated; Sandone claimed she had bought pants and intended to exchange clothing, and alleged her son had the receipt in Houston.
- Sandone was convicted by a jury; punishment was 160 days in confinement, suspended, with community supervision.
- Appellant appeals, challenging the admission of value testimony by Butler and the admission of Officer Chi’s statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butler’s testimony on value was proper | Sandone argues Butler wasn’t qualified to testify on value | State contends Butler, as owner/proper owner, can testify on value | No abuse; Butler admissible on value as owner/special owner under Sullivan/Keeton |
| Whether Officer Chi’s conversation with Sandone was improperly admitted | Sandone contends Miranda warnings and 38.22 requirements were not satisfied | State argues custodial interrogation/recording not required; statements corroborated by Butler | Harmless error; admission not prejudicial given same facts admitted without objection; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. State, 701 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (owner may testify on value; non-owner must prove value with fair market value)
- Keeton v. State, 803 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (establishes fair market value as standard for value in theft)
- Holz v. State, 320 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (owner testimony suffices to prove value; Sullivan applied to owners)
- Garza v. State, 344 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (special owner competent to testify to value under Sullivan)
- Jones v. State, 814 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (project manager/owner-like status admissible on value)
- Castle v. State, 718 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1986) (employee with greater right of possession can establish ownership for value)