Lowrey, Gerald Mac, PD-1053-15

Lowrey, a truck driver for Joe Tex Xpress, transported crates of copper to Schneider Electric; one pallet arrived opened and 41 four-inch-wide copper bars were missing.
Lowrey sold copper at Paris Iron & Metal; police later investigated matching bars from that sale and charged Lowrey with theft (< $20,000).
Lowrey subpoenaed Schneider Electric employee Raul Bueno to testify he inspected the shipment and that only one crate (the four-inch bars) was opened; Bueno failed to appear.
Trial court denied Lowrey's twice-requested writ of attachment for Bueno and also denied a continuance; the jury convicted Lowrey and the court probated a 2-year state-jail sentence.
On appeal Lowrey argued the trial court abused its discretion in refusing attachment (compulsory-process claim), erred denying a continuance, and that evidence as to ownership/identity of the victim was insufficient or varianced.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding Bueno’s proposed testimony would have been cumulative and not materially favorable, the continuance claim was not preserved or harmless, and proof sufficiently identified Joe Tex Express as the owner.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lowrey)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Trial court refusal to issue writ of attachment for subpoenaed defense witness	Bueno was a disinterested, crucial witness who would have testified only one crate was opened; denial deprived Lowrey of compulsory process and his defense	State argued Lowrey failed to provide sworn/agreed testimony about what Bueno would say and that Bueno’s testimony would be cumulative	Denied abuse of discretion: court found documentary evidence and Dunavant’s testimony already established only one pallet was open; Bueno’s testimony would have been cumulative and not material
Denial of motion for continuance after attachment denied	Needed time to secure Bueno’s presence; his testimony was material	Motion was unsworn and thus procedurally defective; even if error, harmless because testimony not material	No abuse of discretion: claim not preserved (motion unsworn) and any error harmless
Sufficiency / variance regarding victim identity (owner named as "Joe Tex Express")	Indictment named Joe Tex Express but did not name a natural person or clearly a corporate owner; argues variance or failure to prove the alleged owner	State proved through testimony (Dunavant) and documents that Joe Tex Express (Joe Tex Xpress, Inc.) was the owner and Lowrey lacked consent; identity, not formal name, controls sufficiency	Evidence sufficient: identity of owner established; any naming variance immaterial under modern Texas law

Sturgeon v. State, 106 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Article 24.12 attachment of duly served subpoenaed witness is a matter of right and sets three-step preservation test)
Erwin v. State, 729 S.W.2d 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (procedure for preserving error when subpoenaed witness fails to appear)
Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (identity of alleged owner controls sufficiency; entity may be alleged as owner)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (variance doctrine — discrepancy between pleading and proof analyzed for materiality)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process)
Roberts v. State, 513 S.W.2d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (indictment variance where proof failed to show the named individual was owner)
Simpson v. United States, 992 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (court may not deny compulsory process by second-guessing probativeness; bench-warrant refusal can violate right to compulsory process)