Grimm v. State
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6519
Tex. App.2016Background
- Police found numerous documents and fake IDs in appellant’s hotel room and apartment, including >40 RV rental applications, fake driver’s licenses, credit card-related materials, and templates/instructions for creating fake IDs on his laptop.
- Appellant gave recorded statements admitting to creating fake credit-card numbers (using the Luhn algorithm), activating cards addressed to others, and making fake IDs; he also initially admitted association with people committing financial crimes and later said he’d told investigators "half-truths."
- Appellant possessed credit cards in others’ names and texted a friend instructions for using a fabricated card number; police recovered a wallet with multiple cards not all in his name.
- Appellant was indicted for unlawfully possessing 50 or more items of identifying information (Tex. Penal Code § 32.51); he was not charged for separate fraud acts.
- At trial, the State relied on the seized documents (sponsored by the detective) and testimony (including the RV owner Weger) to establish the applications were real business records and that appellant lacked consent and had intent to defraud; appellant testified he legitimately possessed some materials or that others brought them to his home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that appellant possessed ≥50 items of identifying information, without consent, with intent to harm or defraud | State: RV applications plus other seized items together constitute over 50 items; circumstantial evidence and appellant’s admissions show lack of consent and intent to defraud | Appellant: Applications might be fraudulent or not tied to real people; absence of live testimony from applicants defeats proof of number, consent, and intent | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, evidence (including applications, Weger’s testimony, appellant’s admissions) supports all elements |
| Admissibility of RV applications and a fake driver’s license over hearsay objection | State: Exhibits offered to show what appellant possessed (not for truth of contents); business-record foundation later supplied by Weger for applications | Appellant: Exhibits are hearsay because applicants didn’t testify and contents were offered for truth | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; exhibits admissible to prove possession (non-hearsay purpose); business-record exception covered applications’ contents |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. Crim. App.) (legal insufficiency standard)
- Williams v. State, 236 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App.) (jury credibility/weight rules)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App.) (resolving conflicts in evidence for sufficiency)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App.) (consideration of all evidence including improperly admitted)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
- Cortez v. State, 469 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. Crim. App.) (definition and counting of an "item" of identifying information)
- Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial proof and cumulative inference doctrine)
- Baird v. State, 398 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App.) (definition of consent/assent in fact)
- Ramirez-Memije v. State, 466 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (presumption of intent where defendant possesses identifying information of three or more persons)
- Shuffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Mechler v. State, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reviewing trial-court evidentiary decisions based on record at time made)
- Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial-court decision upheld if correct under any legal theory)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App.) (statement offered to show what was said, not truth, is not hearsay)
- Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App.) (non-hearsay when offered for purpose other than truth)