Sonnier v. State (1992)

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... 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.

Jewell v. State (1996)

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…