Taylor, Henry Jr.
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1917
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Taylor contracted with Reich to manufacture and install four LED signs; Reich paid $14,657.25 down and $10,000 was paid soon after when Taylor allegedly represented the signs were ready for shipment.
- Reich’s office manager (Yocum) expected installation by December; when work did not proceed she pressed Taylor, who gave evasive explanations and produced disputed invoices.
- Taylor performed some work (permits, visits, partial preparation) but the LED signs were never installed; Reich filed a police report and Taylor was prosecuted for theft ($1,500–$20,000).
- The trial judge admitted testimony from four other customers who paid deposits and experienced similar delays, incomplete work, and nonrefunds; the judge convicted Taylor after a bench trial and ordered restitution of $22,600.
- The court of appeals (2–1) affirmed, finding a false representation induced the $10,000 payment; a dissent argued partial performance and lack of proof funds were diverted made the evidence insufficient.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and affirmed the court of appeals: evidence was sufficient to infer, by the time of the $10,000 payment, Taylor knew he likely would not perform and obtained payment by deception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Taylor had intent to deprive Reich of property when he induced the $10,000 payment | Taylor induced the $10,000 payment by falsely representing signs were ready; pattern of similar transactions shows he knew he would not perform | Partial performance and payment do not prove criminal intent; inconsistent invoices and lack of proof funds were diverted mean no intent to steal | Affirmed: a rational fact‑finder could infer by late‑Nov payment Taylor knew he would not fulfill the contract and obtained payment by deception |
| Whether partial or substantial performance negates criminal intent to commit theft by deception | Pattern of prior failures, evasive conduct, and false representation that signs were ready overcame partial performance | Prior case law holds substantial performance typically negates intent; absence of evidence funds were misapplied supports acquittal | Held that partial performance is not conclusive; circumstantial pattern evidence can permit finding of intent to deprive |
Key Cases Cited
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard for hypothetically correct jury charge and sufficiency review)
- Geick v. State, 349 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (the hypothetically correct charge embraces statutory alternate methods raised by evidence)
- Baker v. State, 986 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998) (partial performance can negate intent to commit theft by deception)
- Merryman v. State, 391 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (series of transactions with same pattern supports inference of theft by deception)
- Wirth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (review of sufficiency in contract‑related theft claims)