Uyamadu v. State
359 S.W.3d 753
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Uyamadu convicted of theft in 1138060 and of witness tampering in 1176507; sentences run concurrently.
- Two Toughbook computers stolen in a June 6, 2007 hotel burglary were found in Uyamadu's luggage at Intercontinental Airport on July 12, 2007.
- Evidence showed Uyamadu traveled to Nigeria with seven laptops; initial hair prints did not match him.
- Officers linked the stolen computers to Uyamadu through serial numbers and expert inspection revealing last file access dates around July 5–6, 2007.
- A witness-tampering investigation revealed Belfon was paid by Nzewi and Uyamadu to lie or withhold information; a May 17, 2008 meeting was recorded, supporting charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for value of stolen computers | Havron valued computers and software at $23,570 | Software should not be included; Chapter 33 definitions should not control Chapter 31 value | Value shown at least $20,000; sufficient evidence affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence of culpability (personal theft or knowing theft) | State proved Uyamadu appropriated knowing theft | Insufficient proof he personally stole or knew it was stolen by another | Evidence sufficient to establish appropriation with knowledge of theft |
| Sufficiency of evidence Belfon was a prospective witness for witness tampering | Belfon was a prospective witness in the theft prosecution | Belfon not a prospective witness for the State; statute limited scope | Belfon was a prospective defense witness; evidence supports tampering |
| Jury charge error regarding 'witness' vs 'prospective witness' | Charge used 'prospective witness' in application paragraph | No prejudice; no egregious harm shown | No reversible error; harm not egregious |
| Preservation of error for co-defendant's closing argument; impact on appellant | Woerner adoption rule should preserve error for both | Appellant silent; no proper preservation; no reviewable error | Issue not preserved; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- Keeton v. State, 803 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (defining fair market value for theft)
- Valdez v. State, 116 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. App.—Houston (14th Dist.) 2002) (fair market value; inclusion of special property value)
- Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (definition/purview of ‘witness’ and ‘prospective witness’ in retaliation context)
- Morrow v. State, 862 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (retaliation-related scope of ‘prospective witness’)
- Arnold v. State, 68 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (witness tampering with prospective state witness)
- Nunez v. State, 27 S.W.3d 210 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000) (prospective witness concept in tampering context)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (credibility and weight of witnesses; standard of review)
- Prodan v. State, 574 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (jury evaluation of witness credibility)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm analysis for improper jury charge)