Marco Antonio Martinez v. State, 01-16-00069-CR

Marco Antonio Martinez ran LaNeta Newspaper; Luis Fernando Castro supervised a newspaper distribution company.
On June 5, 2015, the two fought at a convenience store over newspaper placement; a physical altercation ensued.
During the fight Castro dropped a cell phone; Castro testified Martinez picked it up, showed it to him, then walked out and smashed it on a concrete pillar. Castro never got the phone back.
Martinez testified he picked up his own phone (which he had dropped) and sunglasses during the scuffle.
Officer Vo reviewed store surveillance video and concluded the phone smashed by Martinez belonged to Castro (Martinez’s observed phone was undamaged); Martinez was charged with theft of property valued $500–$1500.
A jury convicted Martinez; the trial court suspended a one-year sentence and placed him on one year’s community supervision. The court of appeals affirmed on sufficiency review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to deprive owner (element of theft)	State: Video, Castro’s testimony, and officer’s observations support that Martinez picked up and smashed Castro’s phone, showing intent to deprive.	Martinez: He picked up his own phone, not Castro’s, so lacked intent to steal.	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (appellate sufficiency review principles in Texas)
Pena v. State, 441 S.W.3d 635 (application of Jackson standard)
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (deference to jury on witness credibility)
Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155 (intent to deprive is an element of theft)