Kevin Lavelle Kent v. State, 447 S.W.3d 408

Appellant Kevin Lavelle Kent was tried for aggregate theft under Tex. Penal Code § 31.09 for obtaining over $200,000 from Barbara and Tamara Allen and Larry and Joann Aniol across multiple transfers (May 2003–March 2008).
The State’s theory aggregated multiple individual thefts (transfers treated as one offense under a single scheme/continuing course of conduct) and charged under general theft language (§ 31.03) in the jury charge rather than tracking § 31.09’s wording.
The jury charge used a disjunctive formulation listing multiple owners and transfers without instructing juror unanimity as to which specific underlying theft(s) (i.e., which property from which owner) made up the aggregated offense.
Appellant objected at trial that the charge allowed a non‑unanimous verdict and requested listing each underlying theft by date, amount, and owner; the trial court overruled the objection.
The jury convicted and assessed punishment at 60 years; the court of appeals considered whether unanimity is required for the gravamina of each underlying theft aggregated under § 31.09 and whether the charge error caused harm requiring reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kent)	Held
Whether juror unanimity is required as to the underlying statutory violations aggregated under § 31.09	Unanimity not required for the aggregated violations; underlying violations are manner/means (alternative modes)	Each underlying theft (its elements) is an element of aggregate theft and jurors must unanimously agree on which underlying thefts were proven	Unanimity is required for the gravamina of the underlying thefts (what property and from whom) when § 31.09 aggregates § 31.03 offenses
Whether prior decisions (Lehman, Murchison) mandate no unanimity requirement	Lehman and Murchison support treating underlying allegations as alternative means not requiring unanimity	Lehman did not address unanimity squarely; Murchison’s reliance on Lehman is dicta and non‑binding	Lehman does not resolve unanimity; Murchison’s reliance on Lehman is dictum and does not control the unanimity question
Whether the trial charge error (disjunctive charge) caused reversible harm	The State argued evidence and charge as a whole cured any error; no meaningful dispute among transactions	Charge permitted non‑unanimous verdict; State mischaracterized law to venire and jury; evidence showed distinct issues across victims (Aniols vs Allens)	Appellant suffered "some" actual harm (Almanza standard); reversal and remand for new trial required

Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (Sup. Ct.) (unanimity required as to each underlying criminal "violation" in continuing-offense statute)
Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App.) (the gravamina of theft are property and ownership; different property/from different owners are different thefts)
Graves v. State, 795 S.W.2d 185 (Tex. Crim. App.) (aggregate theft treats individual thefts as parts/elements of the single offense)
Lehman v. State, 792 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. Crim. App.) (plural alleged thefts in an indictment do not require proof of every alleged theft to sustain conviction if proof shows sufficient amount from among them)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App.) (unanimity required for elements; jury must agree on the same specific actus reus)