Joe Shawn Hollander v. State of Texas, 406 S.W.3d 567

Appellant Joe Shawn Hollander convicted of criminal mischief—diversion of a public electricity supply; value less than $20,000; a state jail felony; enhanced with two prior felonies; punishment set at 10 years and $1,000 fine.
Indictment alleged tampering with an electric meter causing < $20,000 loss; state relied on Statutory presumption §28.03(c) to prove tampering.
Evidence lacked direct tampering proof; the State offered circumstantial evidence and presumption that a person receiving the diverted power benefits knowingly tampered with the meter.
State presented two witnesses from the electric company and police; appellant introduced multiple defense witnesses about residence and electricity use.
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding the evidence supported the presumption and no reversible error in jury instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence to link Hollander to the meter tampering and electricity diversion?	Hollander	Hollander contends insufficient link to diversion	Yes; sufficient evidence linked residence/control and diversion.
Is the Section 28.03(c) presumption valid as applied?	Hollander	State argues presumption applies to benefit receiver	Overruled; presumption upheld given evidence of residence/control and benefit.
Did the trial court err by not instructing beyond the presumption as required by §2.05(a)?	Hollander	State concedes error in missing §2.05(a) instruction	No reversible error for egregious harm; not shown.
Did the failure to provide §2.05(a) instructions render the presumption unconstitutional as applied?	Hollander	State argues error non-egregious given weight of evidence	Overruled; error not egregiously harmful; conviction affirmed.
Was the presumption a permissible or impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence?	Hollander	State argued proper law and closing focused on presumption	Overruled; presumption properly applied without improper comment on weight.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (circumstantial evidence probative as direct evidence; Jackson standard applied)
Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (sufficiency review framework; reflects Jackson framework in Texas appellate context)
Robertson v. State, 888 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994) (presumption in §28.03(c) as applied to last billed party; issues about roommates)
Gersh v. State, 714 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (presumption constitutional to extent it ties to economic benefit but may be unconstitutional as applied to some fact patterns)
Edmondson v. State, 747 S.W.2d 8 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1988) (distinguished Gersh; only defendant at address receiving service may sustain presumption)
Willis v. State, 790 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (unconstitutional mandatory presumptions; required §2.05(a) instructions to sustain presumption validity)
Webber v. State, 29 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (discussion of presumptions in jury charge context)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm analysis for preserved/unpreserved trial errors)