Guide to Texas Theft Charges by Howard Lotspeich Alexander & Williams

Section 32.31(b)(1) of the Texas Penal code provides that a person commits the offense of Credit Card Abuse or Debit Card Abuse if that person “presents or uses” a credit/debit card that was not issued to him and is not used with the owner’s consent.  But what does it mean to “present” or “use” a credit/debit card? Can someone “present” a credit/debit card without “using” it?

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered this issue recently in the case of Clinton v. State.  In this case, the appellant had been convicted of the state-jail felony of debit card abuse after she used a stolen debit card to attempt to purchase cigarettes at Wal-Mart.  Notwithstanding the fact that the store declined the card and appellant never completed the transaction, the jury convicted her of “using” the stolen debit card under Section 32.31 (the State did not charge her with “presenting” the card).

On appeal, the 6th District Court of Appeals (Texarkana) reversed the conviction and reformed the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included offense of attempted debit card abuse.  The COA reasoned that appellant did not “use” the debit card, but rather “presented” it.  Because the transaction was not ultimately consummated and she did not obtain a benefit, the COA held that the evidence was insufficient sustain her conviction for "use."

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals took the case on the State’s petition for discretionary review.  The State argued that the COA erred by requiring that “use” of a debit card include proof of consummation of the transaction.  The CCA held:

Based on the ordinary meaning of the words as used in the statute, we conclude that the statutory terms “use” and “present” may overlap in meaning, that a transaction need not be consummated to support a jury finding that a defendant used a debit card, and that the court of appeals erred by determining that the evidence is insufficient to establish debit card abuse.

The CCA concluded that appellant “used” the debit card when she swiped it through the card reader for the purpose of purchasing cigarettes.  Accordingly, the CCA reversed the COA and reinstated the judgment of the trial court.

Judge Price concurred in the opinion, but wrote separately to opine that presentment is subsumed by use and should not be given independent legal significance apart from use.

Byrd v. State

In Byrd, the state charged appellant with theft of certain property from owner “Mike Morales.” At trial, however, the State did not prove, in any way whatsoever, that the property belonged to Mike Morales. The overwhelming proof showed that the property, in fact, belonged to Walmart. On appeal, appellant argued the the evidence was insufficient because the State did not prove that the property belonged to Mike Morales. The 4th Court disagreed, holding that the name of the owner was not required, as it was simply a variance of proof.

This week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. In a unanimous opinion written by Judge Cochran, the CCA held that:

Although the name of the owner is not a substantive element of theft, the State is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person (or entity) alleged in the indictment is the owner is the same person (or entity) – regardless of the name – as shown by the evidence.

The CCA explained that a conviction would still stand if an indictment alleged an incorrect name, such as Buddy Smith, when the proof at trial revealed that the victim’s name was, in fact, John Smith (Buddy was simply a nickname). In that instance, there would be sufficient evidence showing that the person alleged in the indictment is the same person from whom the property was stolen.

In this case:

Not only did the State fail to offer any evidence that "Mike Morales" - the person alleged in the theft indictment - has any ownership interest in or relationship to the property appellant shoplifted, but the jury, without any apparent concern the missing "Mile Morales," convicted her nevertheless.  According to the State, the "only explanation for this exceptional circumstance seems to be that it was so clear to all the parties involved - and possibly to the jury as well - that the real victim (both alleged and proven) was Wal-Mart that the discrepancy seemed not to matter."  An alternate, less generous explanation, is that everyone was asleep at the wheel.

As a rule for future Walmart theft cases (and all theft cases), the majority opinion states:

The parties, the court, and the jury must know the identity of the owner [of the stolen property] regardless of how the State names him.

It is worth noting that the CCA did not foreclose the option of the State reindicting the appellant for theft from “Walmart,” as jeopardy has not attached to that specific offense. But as far as theft from Mike Morales goes, the appellant stands acquitted.