Texas Law Cases on Theft

John L. Clough found various items from his shop had been stolen and among them were four-amplifier speaker’s value ad $1400. Olga Lee Sonnier was convicted of the theft of the speakers. John found that Burton, his employee had worked for him for several months and disappeared the same time the speakers went missing. Therefore, John reported a complaint on the theft and informed the police that he suspected Burton had stolen the speakers.

Few days after the speakers were stolen, they were found in a pawnshop. The pawnshop workers reported that the speakers were brought by two men who wanted to pawn them through giving an identification of proof of Sonnier. She was then convicted of the theft after facing bench trial.

Q1
The elements of theft without the consent of the owner entail several aspects. Theft undertaken by another party is considered a component of theft without the approval of the owner. Once the defendant received the stolen goods or properties, it is also considered theft. Lastly, when a defendant is issued certain goods of an owner and is aware that the goods were stolen, it is considered an element of theft.
The elements of receiving stolen property in the Texas Theft Statue considers any act of taking some property without the approval of the owner as theft. Moreover, it is a theft violation when one is in illegal possession of property from the owner by another person. Moreover, the defendant’s intention to steal certain goods from the owner is also viewed as a facet of theft (LaFave).

Q2.
In deciding each of the elements of the theft without the consent of the owner, specific issues are evident in the case. For instance, Sonnier gained possession of the speakers by giving her driving license to the pawnshop despite the knowledge that the speakers had been stolen. As such, the theft was committed by Burton, and later the speakers got to the hands of Sonnier when she gave her driving license from the pawnshop.
On the other hand, Sonnier acquired the stolen speakers and even depicted ownership thus illegal possession of the property under the Texas theft statute. Therefore, John’s speakers were obtained from his business premises without his consent.

Q3
The speakers had been stolen from John’s club and later pawned by Sonnier. She issued her driver’s license in the pawn shop with her full details that had her correct name and address. As such, this is proof that can be applied efficiently in court. Moreover, by being in ownership of stolen goods, it is also a depiction of one to be imprisoned for theft.

Q4
For one to be convicted, it is crucial to have ample evidence which is apparently not present in this case. Therefore, it is necessary to have sufficient evidence to show that Sonnier was aware that the speakers had been stolen. In this case, that evidence is apparently not present. Moreover, the speakers were taken to the pawnshop by two individuals and not Sonnier. It is fundamental for the employees at this shop to go ahead and identify the two individuals. In this way, it will clear any doubts that Sonnier may have been involved in taking the speakers to the shop. Therefore, she should be acquitted of the theft.

Q1
The case has pointed out that Jewell has good knowledge of the house belonging to his estranged wife, Bridget. He was involved in its maintenance when she purchased the house on contract in her maiden name from her relatives. It is thus evident that Jewell has some form of interest in the property. In contrast, Jewell also has some of the interest in Bridget’s house thus depicting that he can be in a position to steal from the same property. Despite Bridget changing the locks, Jewel would still be seen observing it from a distance even after he moved out.

Q2
The dwelling of another according to the state of Indiana depicts that any individual who breaks and gains access to the dwelling of another person with an aim to commit a crime inside the building is offense. Moreover, any person who breaks the dwelling of another individual with the intention to indulge in either theft, or any other form of crime is considered an offense (Samaha). It can further be depicted that any kind of entry into the dwelling of a person in the wrong way is similar to committing a crime.
Therefore, Jewell admitted to a good friend that he had broken into Bridget’s house and had committed as the police had accused him of the same. He further asked him to lie to the police that they were out consuming beer and engaging in riding during the night of the violence. Moreover, Jewell told his roommate that he had been accused of striking Jones with a board yet the police had not revealed that the victim had been hit using a board. Therefore, Jewell had broken into Bridget’s dwelling.

Q3
The courts employed several measures to conclude that Jewel burglarized his own home. He was no longer in the house and thus could have gained access using the kitchen window which is apparently an unlawful activity. In contrast, after gaining access to Bridget’s house, Jewell was involved in two forms of felonies. There was the class A felony that entailed burglary with a deadly weapon leading to critical bodily injury and class C that was battery resulting in severe physical damage as well.
On the other hand, admitting to his close friend that he had committed the crime was also a clear depiction that he had committed the crime. When he was in jail, Jewell also discussed with another inmate and confessed to having indulged in the misconduct. He even went ahead to give out all the details. He admitted to having rubber gloves in a coat pocket and later threated the convict not to tell the police anything that he had overheard.

Q4.
The unauthorized entry requirement was done by Jewell since Bridget changed the locks as a way of hindering him from gaining access to the house after he moved out. Additionally, Jewell was not entirely happy with the romantic relationship between Bridget and Jones. He told his acquaintance that he needed to encounter Jones at a dark place and hit him over the head then cut off his “dick.” Besides, he also went to Jone’s workplace and laid threats to kill him if he carried on with his relationship with Bridget. Jewell was also seen on numerous occasions observing Bridget’s house a clear indication that he might have been planning something wicked.

Q5
The decision of the court was right. Jewel was not living with Bridget in the same house and thus accessed it through the kitchen window, an indication of an unlicensed entry. After locating the house, Jewell also committed two types of felonies, class A and C. By committing these crimes in Bridget’s house; it was a clear indication of a crime due to the method of entry he utilized to access the premises.


Works cited
"Jewell V. State." Justia Law, 1996, https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/1996/51a01-9506-cr-192-9.html.
LaFave, Wayne. Criminal Law. 6th ed., West Academic, 2017.
Samaha, Joel. Criminal Law. 12th ed., Cengage Learning, 2016.
"Sonnier V. State, 849 S.W.2D 828 – Courtlistener.Com." Courtlistener, 1992, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1722690/sonnier-v-state/.