Jason Daniel Crouch v. State
05-15-00858-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- Appellant Jason Daniel Crouch was convicted by a jury of theft of property (a motor vehicle) valued at $20,000–$100,000; after a true enhancement plea he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
- Silverado Reconditioning Services was transporting nine cars on a car-hauler; one car, a 2011 BMW, was missing after the hauler was taken from a gated lot.
- Officer Songer observed a bronze/brown BMW with a suspicious hand-colored paper tag; the driver (later identified as appellant) fled on foot when approached; a passenger (Heather Smith) identified appellant and testified he had driven the BMW for several days and told her it was stolen.
- The BMW’s trunk contained scrap metal and batteries; gloves were found in the driver’s door pocket; investigators recovered no usable fingerprints or DNA and explained thieves often wear gloves.
- Silverado’s owner (Stratton) testified the BMW’s KBB/blue-book value was $24,500 and that only Silverado personnel had permission to take the cars; defense challenged identity, knowledge, and value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: identity/knowledge — whether Crouch stole or knowingly possessed a stolen BMW | Evidence (Songer, Smith, flight, gloves, unusual contents, admissions) proves Crouch drove and knew the car was stolen | Insufficient direct proof he stole or knew it was stolen; witnesses equivocal | Affirmed — cumulative circumstantial evidence and inferences support conviction for unlawful appropriation and knowledge |
| Sufficiency: value — whether BMW’s value was within $20,000–$100,000 | Owner Stratton’s testimony of $24,500 blue-book value establishes fair market value | Cross-examination suggested CarMax may have paid less; value not proved beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed — owner’s testimony sufficient to prove fair market value |
| Jury charge/unanimity — whether application paragraph permitted non-unanimous verdicts (alternate means, two owner names, unspecified motor vehicle) | Charge was flawed because it allowed jurors to convict on different means, owners, or a different vehicle | The gravamen is unlawful appropriation; manner/means and owner-name are not essential elements requiring unanimity; evidence focused on the BMW | Affirmed — no unanimity error; jurors must agree on essential elements (appropriation, intent, value) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (circumstantial evidence can be as probative as direct evidence)
- Young v. State, 341 S.W.3d 417 (unanimity not required as to specific manner or means of committing offense)
- Saenz v. State, 451 S.W.3d 388 (jury must agree on all essential elements of a single offense)
- Keeton v. State, 803 S.W.2d 304 (owner testimony may establish fair market value)
- Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (appellate review must defer to factfinder’s credibility and weight determinations)