Johnson v. State
560 S.W.3d 224
Tex. Crim. App.2018Background
- Appellant ran Johnson Family Mortuary (JFM); his wife Hardy owned it and was sole signatory on its bank account. JFM subcontracted cremations and required a registered Funeral Director in Charge (FDIC) and death-certificate filings via the Texas Electronic Registration (TER) to perform cremations.
- FDIC Michael Pierce resigned and was removed from TER; attempts to use his credentials failed, making cremations impossible without an FDIC on file.
- On July 7, 2014 Margaret Francois paid $1,500 by cashier's check to JFM for Patricia Baptiste’s cremation; the check was endorsed by Hardy and deposited. Baptiste’s body was later found decomposing at JFM on July 15.
- Count Two alleged aggregated theft (one scheme/continuing course) based on payments for cremations of Karen Jones, Helen Jones, and Titus Harrison; memorial/funeral services occurred but cremations did not, and families received wrong or no cremains.
- Jury convicted Appellant on two counts of theft ($1,500–$20,000); the court of appeals reversed for insufficiency (majority), prompting State discretionary review. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals and remanded for further consideration of other errors.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove intent to deprive at time of payment | Appellant knew cremations could not be performed (TER rejection, lack of FDIC) and had prior similar deceptive transactions; a jury could infer intent to never perform | Appellant argued delays and partial performance (memorials) showed intent only to delay, not to never perform | Reversed court of appeals: evidence was sufficient for intent to deprive for both counts when viewed most favorably to prosecution |
| Whether appropriation of Francois's $1,500 (check) supported theft-of-money charge | The cashier's check was negotiated (deposited) and spent; Appellant acquired/controlled the check and aided appropriation via Hardy | Appellant argued he wasn’t payee nor signatory and did not personally negotiate the check, so no appropriation of money occurred | Held: appropriation proven — check deposited and funds spent; Appellant liable as primary actor or as a party; check treated as representing money/value |
| Whether Appellant may be convicted as a party under §7.02(a) despite lack of evidence of Hardy’s intent | State contended Appellant aided/caused Hardy (an innocent/nonresponsible person) to appropriate funds while Appellant had requisite intent; §7.02(a)(1) and (2) theories apply | Johnson argued §7.02(a)(2) requires proof the other person actually intended the offense; concurring judge questioned imposing liability when co-actor lacked intent | Court held Appellant may be held criminally responsible: party liability under §7.02(a)(1) (causing/ aiding an innocent person) or as primary actor supports conviction; §7.02(a)(2) need not be the sole theory |
| Whether court of appeals misapplied sufficiency standard of review | State argued court of appeals reweighed evidence and ignored inferences favoring verdict | Court of appeals majority treated some incriminating evidence as exculpatory and required too much direct proof | Court held lower court erred in applying Jackson/Musacchio standard; reversed and remanded for remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate legal-sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (measure evidence against hypothetically correct jury charge)
- Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (legal-sufficiency principles reaffirmed)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can alone establish guilt)
- Taylor v. State, 450 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (in contract-based theft, State must prove intent at time of taking; partial performance does not preclude finding intent not to perform)
- Wirth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (failure to perform, without other evidence, insufficient to prove intent to deceive)
- Simmons v. State, 109 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (face amount of check is presumptive evidence of its value)
- Lieske v. State, 131 S.W. 1126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1910) (distinguishing theft of money from theft of a check unless additional proof of negotiation/negotiation to obtain funds)
- Orr v. State, 836 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992) (check vs. cash distinctions; cited by court of appeals but distinguished by CCA where check was negotiated)