Theresa Garcia Infante v. State
404 S.W.3d 656
Tex. App.2012Background
- Infante was convicted of theft by a public servant for taking a radio valued between $1,500 and $20,000.
- She testified she lent a radio to Billy Cable, who was later arrested with a radio police traced to Infante’s employer’s precinct.
- Cable claimed he bought the radio from Infante; Infante alleged she loaned, not sold, a radio; the radio allegedly belonged to another employer.
- The State presented evidence via Keith LeJeune that Harris County originally purchased the radio for $2,131.46 in 2000 and replacement cost in 2008 was about $4,000.
- The radio model became obsolete; the radio shop could not establish a precise fair market value in 2008, so replacement cost evidence was used.
- Infante challenged the sufficiency of value evidence, hearsay, and an accomplice-witness instruction, all of which the court addressed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of value evidence | Infante contends FMV was ascertainable and based on replacement cost is improper. | State relied on replacement cost where fair market value could not be ascertained. | Value evidence sufficient; replacement cost allowed. |
| Hearsay and Confrontation Clause | LeJeune’s testimony about the serial number was hearsay and testimonial. | Business records and serial-number evidence were non-testimonial or harmless. | Admissible under business-records rule; no Confrontation Clause violation; harmless error. |
| Accomplice-witness instruction | Cable should be treated as an accomplice; jury should be instructed. | Cable did not affirmatively participate or assist Infante in the theft. | No accomplice-witness instruction required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1989) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing conflicting evidence)
- Keeton v. State, 803 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (definition of value in theft cases)
- Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (hearsay and confrontation analysis with non-testimonial evidence)
- Campos v. State, 317 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (business records admissibility under Rule 803(6))
- Cocke v. State, 201 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (accomplice-witness concepts and possession alone not enough)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (Confrontation Clause limits with testimonial evidence)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (admissibility of expert reliance on third-party lab data under Confrontation Clause)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates as testimonial evidence)