Tasaririshe Alex v. State
06-15-00054-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 21, 2015Background
- Appellant Tasaririshe Alex, a former Jack in the Box team leader fired ~1 month before, was indicted for burglary/theft of a Kilgore Jack in the Box on March 9, 2014.
- Indictment named district manager Curtis Franklin as the owner whose consent was allegedly lacking. Franklin did not testify at trial.
- Surveillance video and witness testimony (store GM Francheska Ward and employees) identified Alex entering the store after hours by breaking a window and accessing the locked safe using a known code.
- Ward testified she had authority to speak for Franklin, had not given permission for anyone to be in the store after hours, and was unaware of any consent from Franklin.
- Detective Tim Dukes testified he spoke with Franklin, who assisted by identifying a vehicle seen in the video; no evidence or witness testified that Franklin had given Alex permission to enter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Alex entered without owner Curtis Franklin's effective consent | State: Circumstantial evidence (Ward’s testimony, employee IDs, Dukes’s interview with Franklin, video, vehicle match) supports a rational juror finding Franklin did not consent | Alex: (as argued on appeal) Insufficient proof that the named owner, Franklin, did not consent because Franklin did not testify and no direct evidence of his lack of consent | Court: Evidence sufficient; lack of consent may be proved circumstantially and jury reasonably found no consent beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for assessing sufficiency of evidence)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (deference to jury in resolving conflicts and drawing inferences)
- Matamoros v. State, 901 S.W.2d 470 (appellate role as due-process safeguard ensuring rationality of fact-finder)
- Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (identity of owner controls sufficiency review; proof can be through an agent)
- Taylor v. State, 508 S.W.2d 393 (lack of consent can be proved circumstantially)
- King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (appellate courts should avoid disturbing jury verdicts)
- Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866 (appellate review principles on factual sufficiency and jury role)