Gregory Alan Gauer v. State, 08-15-00118-CR

Appellant (Gauer) and co-defendant were observed dismantling air-conditioning units from a burned, vacant house owned by Green; LaFrance (neighbor and contract purchaser) confronted them and, fearing the men, told them to “go ahead and take what you want.”
Police stopped a vehicle leaving the scene; officers found air-conditioning compressors, copper tubing/wire, tools, and a dash-cam recording of the arrestees admitting they took items from the burned house but claimed they had permission from a neighbor.
LaFrance and Green both testified at trial that LaFrance had no authority, possession, or control over Green’s property despite a signed contract to purchase; an investigating officer had earlier reported LaFrance said Green had asked her to watch the property, but Green denied this.
Appellant did not testify; his defense presented co-defendant Yepma’s testimony that he asked LaFrance for permission and she consented, and argued Appellant reasonably believed she had actual or apparent authority (mistake of fact defense).
The trial court instructed the jury on the mistake-of-fact defense; the jury rejected it, convicted Appellant of theft, and assessed two years in a state jail and a $10,000 fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gauer)	Held
Whether LaFrance was a "special owner" able to give effective consent	LaFrance did not have care, custody, control, or management of Green’s property; Green denied granting authority	LaFrance had a contract to buy the property and thus functioned as a special owner able to consent	Court held LaFrance was not shown to be a special owner; jury could rationally find no actual authority
Whether Appellant had a reasonable mistake-of-fact belief that LaFrance had authority	State: evidence disproved any reasonable belief; Appellant did not testify and evidence contradicted apparent authority	Appellant: reasonably believed LaFrance had actual/apparent authority to consent	Court held evidence sufficient for jury to reject mistake-of-fact; State disproved defense beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether purported consent was effective (not induced by coercion)	State: consent was given under coercion/fear and thus ineffective	Defense: consent (if given) was voluntary and uncoerced	Court held reasonable juror could find LaFrance’s statement induced by coercion/fear and thus ineffective consent
Sufficiency of the evidence for theft conviction	State: evidence viewed in light most favorable supports conviction beyond reasonable doubt	Defense: no rational juror could reject mistake-of-fact or actual authority arguments	Court affirmed conviction; evidence legally sufficient under Jackson/Brooks standard

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legal-sufficiency standard for reviewing criminal convictions)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (rational trier of fact standard for sufficiency review)
Garza v. State, 344 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (recognition of "special owner" concept under Texas theft statute)
Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mistake of fact negates culpable mental state element)
Montgomery v. State, 588 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (when evidence raises mistake-of-fact question, jury instruction required)