## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 1 4 4 7

- 1 2

J O E S H A W N H O L L A N D E R

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E E L E V E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

E A S T L A N D C O U N T Y

P R IC E

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h M E Y E R S

, W O M A C K

,

J O H N S O N

, C O C H R A N

, a n d A L C A L A

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. C O C H R A N

, J

. , f i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g

o p i n i o n

. K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , f i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h K E A S L E R a n d H E R V E Y

, J J

. , j o i n e d

.

O P I N I O N

T h e E l e v e n t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r e g r e g i o u s h a r m

w h e n t h e t r i a l c o u r t f

a i l e d t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t i t m u s t f i n d c e r t a i n p r e d i c a t e f

a c t s t o b e

t r u e t o a l e v e l o f c o n f

i d e n c e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t b e f o r e r e l y i n g u p o n a s t a t u t o r y

p r e s u m p t i o n t o c o n v i c t h i m

. W e g r a n t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w 1

1

Hollander v. State , 406 S.W .3d 567, 578 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2012).Hollander — 2

i n o r d e r t o e x a m i n e t h a t h o l d i n g

. W e w i l l r e v e r s e

.

B A C K G R O U N D

T h e S t a t u t o r y P r e s u m p t i o n

A j u r y c o n v i c t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t o f c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f f o r t a m p e r i n g w i t h a m e t e r i n g

d e v i c e i n o r d e r t o d i v e r t e l e c t r i c i t y

, w h i c h h e d i d n o t p a y f o r

, t o t h e h o u s e i n w h i c h h e w a s

r e s i d i n g

. A p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e s t a t e

- j a i l f e l o n y o f f e n s e o f c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f b y d i v e r t i n g 2

a p u b l i c s e r v i c e i f

, w i t h o u t t h e e f

f e c t i v e c o n s e n t o f t h e o w n e r

, h e i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r k n o w i n g l y

d i v e r t s a p u b l i c p o w e r s u p p l y a n d t h e r e b y c a u s e s p e c u n i a r y l o s s t o t h e o w n e r i n a n a m o u n t

l e s s t h a n $ 2 0

, 0 0 0

. T h e r e i s a s t a t u t o r y p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t a p e r s o n w h o r e c e i v e s t h e 3

“ e c o n o m i c b e n e f

i t ” o f t h e s e r v i c e h a s e n g a g e d i n t h e p r o h i b i t e d c o n d u c t

. I f t h e S t a t e 4

p r e s e n t s f

a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o g i v e r i s e t o t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n

, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e

e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d a t t r i a l d o e s n o t o t h e r w i s e p r e c l u d e a j u r y f r o m b e l i e v i n g t h e p r e s u m e d

f a c t b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

, t h e n t h e m a t t e r m u s t b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y

. U p o n 5

c o n s i g n i n g t h e i s s u e t o t h e j u r o r s

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e m u s t c h a r g e t h e m t h a t t h e y m a y u s e t h e

p r e s u m p t i o n t o f

i n d t h e d e f

e n d a n t g u i l t y o n l y i f t h e S t a t e p r o v e s t h e f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e

2

See T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 28.03(b)( 4)(D)

. The house to whi ch t he service s wer e alleg edly

diverted was l ocate d at 300 West 6 Street in Cisco, Texas, and the ac count for the elec tric ut ility t h

was in the na me of “ J ohn Coslett.” We will hereinafte r simply call it “the Cisco house.”

3

Id .; T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 28.03(a) (2).

4

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 28.03(c)

.

5

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 2.05(a) (1).Hollander — 3

p r e s u m p t i o n b e

y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. 6

T h e E v i d e n c e a t T r i a l

T h e i n d i c t m e n t a l l e g e d t h a t

, “ o n o r a b o u t A p r i l 2 6

, 2 0 1 0

, ” t h e a p p e l l a n t t a m p e r e d w i t h

a n e l e c t r i c m e t e r d e v i c e

, d i v e r t i n g p o w e r “ b y i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t w o w i r e s f o r s u c h p u r p o s e

. ”

T h e j u r y c h a r g e t r a c k e d t h e i n d i c t m e n t i n t h i s r e g a r d

. A n e m p l o y e e o f t h e e l e c t r i c c o m p a n y

t e s t i f i e d t h a t

, s o m e t i m e i n l a t e F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 0

, h e t u r n e d o f f t h e e l e c t r i c i t y t o t h e C i s c o h o u s e

a n d s e a l e d t h e m e t e r b o x

. O n M a r c h 4

, 2 0 1 0

, h e n o t e d t h a t t h e s e a l h a d b e e n b r o k e n a n d t h e

p o w e r t u r n e d b a c k o n

. T h i s t i m e

, a s t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s d e s c r i b e s i t

, “ [ h ] e r e m o v e d t h e

m e t e r

, p u t a p l a s t i c c o v e r o v e r i t

, a n d c l o s e d t h e a c c o u n t

. ” O n A p r i l 2 6

, 2 0 1 0

, t h e s a m e 7

6

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 2.05(a) (2). The proper char g e to the jury should have included the

following admonishments before the cour t entrusted the issue to the jury :

(2) I f the exis tence of the presumed fac t is subm i t t ed t o t h e jury

, the court shall

cha rge t h e jury

, in terms of the presumption and the specific element to which it

applies, as f

ollows:

(A) that the fac ts gi v i n g rise to the presumption must be proven

bey ond a re asonable doubt;

(B ) t hat i f s u ch facts are proven bey ond a reasonable doubt the j ury

may find that the element of the offe nse soug ht to be presumed exis ts,

but it is not bound to so find;

(C) that even though the jury may find the exis tence of such element,

the state must prove bey on d a re asonable doubt eac h of the other

elements of the offe nse cha rg ed; and

(D) if the jury has a r easona

ble doubt as to the existence of a fac t or

fac ts g iving rise to the presumption, the presumption fails and the jury

shall not consider the pr esumption for any purpose.

7

Hollander , 406 S.W .3d at 571.Hollander — 4

e m p l o y e e w a s w o r k i n g n e x t d o o r t o t h e C i s c o h o u s e w h e n h e n o t i c e d t h a t t h e s e a l h a d b e e n

b r o k e n a g a i n

, a n d h e o b s e r v e d w i r e s “ j u m p e r i n g o u t t o t h e m e t e r b o x

, t u r n i n g t h e e l e c t r i c i t y

o n i n t h e h o u s e

. ” A g a i n

, h e s h u t i t o f f

. T h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e t o s h o w w h e n

, b e t w e e n t h e

d a t e s o f M a r c h 4 a n d A p r i l 2 6

, t h e “ j u m p e r i n g ” w i r e s w e r e i n s t a l l e d

. t h t h

O n A p r i l 2 5

, 2 0 1 0

, t h e a p p e l l a n t r e c e i v e d a c i t a t i o n f o r a m i n o r o f

f e n s e u n r e l a t e d t o

t h e t a m p e r i n g c h a r g e

. T h e o f f i c e r w h o i s s u e d t h e c i t a t i o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t l i s t e d

t h e C i s c o h o u s e a s h i s r e s i d e n c e

. M o r e o v e r

, t h e o f f i c e r h a d s e e n t h e a p p e l l a n t g o i n g i n a n d

o u t o f t h a t h o u s e a n d b e l i e v e d i t t o b e w h e r e t h e a p p e l l a n t r e s i d e d

. B u t h e a l s o t e s t i f i e d o n

c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, a g a i n a s t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s d e s c r i b e s i t

, “ t h a t h e c o u l d n o t s t a t e w i t h

c e r t a i n t y t h a t h e h a d s e e n t h e a p p e l l a n t a t t h e a d d r e s s f r o m t h e e n d o f

F e b r u a r y t o A p r i l 2 6

,

2 0 1 0 ; a n d t h a t h e h a d s e e n o t h e r p e o p l e a t t h e h o u s e d u r i n g t h a t t i m e

. ” D e f e n s i v e e v i d e n c e 8

s h o w e d t h a t t h e h o u s e h a d b e l o n g e d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s f a t h e r

, w h o w a s d e c e a s e d

, a n d t h a t t h e

e l e c t r i c c o m p a n y a c c o u n t w a s i n t h e n a m e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s s t e p b r o t h e r

. T h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s

g i r l f r i e n d t e s t i f

i e d t h a t s h e h a d l i v e d w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t a t t h e C i s c o h o u s e d u r i n g p a r t s o f

F e b r u a r y a n d M a r c h ( s p l i t t i n g t i m e b e t w e e n t h e C i s c o h o u s e a n d h e r o w n t r a i l e r h o u s e ) a n d

t h a t t h e p o w e r w a s n e v e r t u r n e d o n w h e n t h e y w e r e s t a y i n g t h e r e

. O t h e r d e f e n s e w i t n e s s e s

e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t

, b y t h e e n d o f M a r c h

, t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s n o l o n g e r r e s i d i n g a t t h e C i s c o

h o u s e

. M e a n w h i l e

, a s m a n y a s t e n o t h e r p e o p l e w e r e e s s e n t i a l l y “ s q u a t t i n g ” t h e r e

.

8

Id . at 572.Hollander — 5

T h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e o f t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

. 9

B u t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n f

a i l e d t o i n d i c a t e

, a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s

, t h e l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e t h a t t h e j u r y

m u s t a c h i e v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e p r e s u m p t i o n b e f o r e i t c o u l d r e l y o n

t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t o c o n v i c t

. S p e c i f i c a l l y

, i t f

a i l e d t o i n f

o r m t h e j u r y t h a t i t m u s t f i n d t h e

p r e d i c a t e f

a c t s

— h e r e

, t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s “ a p e r s o n w h o i s r e c e i v i n g t h e e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t

o f

. . . p u b l i c

. . . p o w e r s u p p l y ”

— t o h a v e b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t b e f o r e

c o n v i c t i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t b a s e d u p o n t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

.

O n D i r e c t A p p e a l

O n a p p e a l

, t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e d

, a n d t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h e l d

, t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d

b y f a i l i n g t o c h a r g e t h e j u r y t h a t t h e S t a t e h a d t o p r o v e t h e p r e d i c a t e f a c t s b e y o n d a

r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. B e c a u s e t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o v e r s i g h t a t t r i a l

, 1 0

r e v e r s a l i s r e q u i r e d o n l y u p o n a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s u f f e r e d e g r e g i o u s h a r m

. T h e 1 1

9

That is to say

, the jury was instructed specific all y i n t h e terms of Section 28.03(c) of the

Penal Code. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 28.03(c) . Thus, the jury was told that

[i ]t is presumed that a person who is rec eiving the economic ben ef i t o f p u blic

communications, public water

, g as, or power supply

, has knowing ly tampere d with

the tang ible proper

ty of the owner if the communication or supply has been diverted

from passing through a metering device

, p reve nted from being corr ectly reg istered

by a metering device

, [or] activate d by any device i n s t al led to obtain public

communications, public wate r, g as, or powe r supply without a metering device

.

Howeve r, none of the instructions mandated by Section 2.05(a) (2) of the Penal Code, which explains

to jurors how to implement such a pr esumption, were g iven. See note 6, ante

.

1 0

Hollander , 406 S.W .3d at 577.

1 1

Almanza v. State , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (opinion on reh’g ).Hollander — 6

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e d o e s n o t e s t a b l i s h e g r e g i o u s h a r m

b e c a u s e “ t h e g r e a t w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e

p r e s u m p t i o n [

. ] ” P r e s u m a b l y t h i s r e f l e c t s t h e b e l i e f t h a t

, h a d t h e j u r y b e e n p r o p e r l y 1 2

i n s t r u c t e d

, i t s u r e l y w o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h e p r e d i c a t e f

a c t s t o b e t r u e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e

d o u b t

. W e g r a n t e d d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w t o e v a l u a t e t h i s e g r e g i o u s

- h a r m a n a l y s i s

.

E G R E G I O U S H A R M U N D E R A L M A N Z A

T o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s u f f e r e d e g r e g i o u s

h a r m

, a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m u s t c o n s i d e r 1 ) t h e c o m p l e t e j u r y c h a r g e

, 2 ) t h e a r g u m e n t s o f

c o u n s e l

, 3 ) t h e e n t i r e t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n t e s t e d i s s u e s a n d w e i g h t o f t h e

p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e

, a n d 4 ) a n y o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s r e v e a l e d b y t h e r e c o r d a s a w h o l e

. 1 3

N e i t h e r p a r t y b e a r s a b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n o r p e r s u a s i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n A l m a n z a h a r m

a n a l y s i s

, t h e q u e s t i o n b e i n g s i m p l y w h a t t h e r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s

. 1 4

T h e J u r y C h a r g e I t s e l f

N o w h e r e d i d t h e j u r y c h a r g e s p e c i f i c a l l y i n f o r m t h e j u r o r s o f t h e d e g r e e o f c o n f i d e n c e

t o w h i c h t h e y m u s t b e c o n v i n c e d o f t h e f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g t h e p r e s u m p t i o n b e f o r e t h e y c o u l d

r e t u r n a g u i l t y v e r d i c t

. T h e j u r y c h a r g e d i d i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y a p p r o p r i a t e l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e

S t a t e ’ s g e n e r a l b u r d e n t o p r o v e a l l o f t h e c o n s t i t u e n t e l e m e n t s o f t h e o f f e n s e b e y o n d a

1 2

Hollander , 406 S.W .3d at 578.

1 3

Almanza , 686 S.W .2d at 171.

1 4

W arner v. State , 245 S.W .3d 458, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).Hollander — 7

r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. B u t

, a s t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s p o i n t e d o u t

, t h i s g e n e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n “ [ a ] l o n e

. . . d i d n o t r e m e d y t h e e r r o r i n t h e c h a r g e

. ” S u c h a g e n e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n f a i l s t o e d u c a t e t h e 1 5

j u r o r s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e t h e y m u s t h a v e i n t h e v e r i t y o f t h e p r e d i c a t e

f a c t s b e f o r e t h e y m a y r e l y o n t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t o c o n v i c t

.

T h e C o n d u c t o f C o u n s e l

N o t h i n g t h a t t h e p a r t i e s s a i d o r d i d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t r i a l t e n d e d t o r e m e d y t h e

d e f i c i e n c y

. N o m e n t i o n w a s m a d e o f t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

d u r i n g v o i r d i r e ; t h e p r o s e c u t o r a n d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l s i m p l y a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e S t a t e “ m u s t

p r o v e [ t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s ] g u i l t b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. ” D u r i n g o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s

, n e i t h e r

s i d e m e n t i o n e d a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e b y w h i c h t h e j u r y m u s t b e l i e v e t h e

p r e d i c a t e f

a c t s

, o n l y r e m i n d i n g t h e j u r y i n a g e n e r a l w a y t h a t t h e S t a t e c a r r i e s t h e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f

. F i n a l l y

, n e i t h e r p a r t y ’ s s u m m a t i o n p r o p e r l y a r t i c u l a t e d t h e c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f

w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

.

I t i s t r u e t h a t d u r i n g h i s f i n a l a r g u m e n t t h e p r o s e c u t o r t o l d t h e j u r y o n s e v e r a l

o c c a s i o n s t h a t t h e S t a t e h a d t o s u p p l y “ c o r r o b o r a t i n g ” e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

, 1 6

1 5

Hollander

, 406 S.W .3d at 577 (citing State v. Lew i s

, 1 5 1 S

. W

. 3d 213, 223 (Tex.

App.—Ty ler 2004)). Cf. Francis v. Franklin

, 471 U.S. 3 0 7

, 3 1 9

- 20 (1985) (g ener al instructions with

re s p ec t t o the burden of proof and presumption of innocenc e “d[id] not dissipate the err or in t h e

challeng ed portion of the instruc tions” that shifted the burde n of proof with r espec t to the element

of intent in an unconstitutional manner)

.

1 6

Throug hout trial, the State char acte rized the evidenc e it proff ere d to supply predic ate fac ts

in s u p p o r t o f th e p r e sumption as “cor robora ting” evidenc e. Strictly speaking

, corr oborating evi d e n c e

is “evide nce that diffe rs from but streng thens or confirms what other evidenc e shows.” B L A C K ’ SHollander — 8

a n d h e r e m i n d e d t h e j u r y t h a t t h e S t a t e h a d t h e o v e r a l l b u r d e n o f p r o o f

. B u t t h e p r o s e c u t o r

m e n t i o n e d t h e g e n e r a l b u r d e n o n l y t o e x p l a i n w h y t h e S t a t e w o u l d g e t t o s p e a k t o t h e j u r y

l a s t d u r i n g s u m m a t i o n

, n o t t o e d u c a t e t h e j u r o r s a s t o t h e d e g r e e o f c o n f i d e n c e b y w h i c h t h e y

m u s t b e l i e v e t h e p r e d i c a t e f a c t s b e f o r e u t i l i z i n g t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t o c o n v i c t t h e a p p e l l a n t

.

T h e b a r e r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e c a r r i e d t h e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f

— e v e n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r e d i c a t e f a c t s s u p p o r t i n g t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

— d i d n o t h i n g t o

a m e l i o r a t e t h e l a c k o f a n i n s t r u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e s p e c i f i c l e v e l o f c o n

f i d e n c e n e c e s s a r y f

o r

t h e j u r y t o r e l y o n t h o s e p r e d i c a t e f a c t s b e f o r e i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

. I n f a c t

, i f

a n y t h i n g

, b y r e p e a t e d l y e m p h a s i z i n g t h e u t i l i t y o f t h e p r e s u m p t i o n w i t h o u t a l s o s u g g e s t i n g

t o t h e j u r o r s j u s t h o w c o n f i d e n t t h e y m u s t b e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r e d i c a t e f a c t s s u p p o r t i n g

i t

, t h e p r o s e c u t o r m a y w e l l h a v e m a n a g e d o n l y t o e n c o u r a g e t h e m t o r e l y o n t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t a r e i n s u p p o r t a b l e i n t h e l a w

. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ’ s f

i n a l a r g u m e n t a l s o

m e n t i o n e d t h e S t a t e ’ s b u r d e n o f p r o o f o n l y g e n e r a l l y a n d

, l i k e t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s

, f a i l e d t o

a d d r e s s w h a t l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e p r e d i c a t e f a c t s w o u l d j u s t i f

y t h e j u r y ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n

o f t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

.

C o n t e s t e d I s s u e s a n d R e l a t i v e W e i g h t o f P r o b a t i v e E v i d e n c e

T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o e g r e g i o u s h a r m b e c a u s e i t p e r c e i v e d

L A W D I C T I O N A R Y 636 (9th ed. 2009). Thus, evidenc e “cor robora ting” the presumption would best

be understood to mean evidenc e of the appellant’ s g uilt that i s al t o gether independe nt of the

p r esumption. I n any event, even if the jury understood the prosec utor’s ref ere nces to “cor

robora ting”

evidenc e to mean the predic ate fac ts i n s u p p o rt of the presumption, use of the term cer tainly did

nothing to reme dy the deficiency of t he court’s char g e ins ofar as it failed to inform the jury of t he

level of c onfidenc e in the pre dicate f acts ne cessa

ry to trigg er its use of the presumption.Hollander — 9

t h a t “ t h e g r e a t w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

. ” 1 7

W e t a k e t h i s t o m e a n t h a t t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e j u r y l i k e l y w o u l d h a v e f o u n d

t h e p r e d i c a t e f

a c t s t o b e t r u e t o t h e r e q u i s i t e l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e

, h a d t h e y b e e n i n s t r u c t e d t h a t

t h e y m u s t i n o r d e r t o c o n v i c t

. T h e s u m t o t a l o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s ’ s a n a l y s i s w a s a s

f o l l o w s : “ W e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y r e v i e w e d t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u p p o r t s t h e f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e

p r e s u m p t i o n : a p p e l l a n t w a s i n c o n t r o l a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e h o u s e a s h i s r e s i d e n c e a n d

a p p e l l a n t b e n e f

i t t e d f r o m t h e t a m p e r e d e l e c t r i c m e t e r

. ” T h e p r e v i o u s r e v i e w t h a t t h e c o u r t 1 8

o f a p p e a l s a l l u d e d t o o c c u r r e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a c l a i m t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s l e g a l l y

i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

. W h i l e t h e e a r l i e r s u f f i c i e n c y a n a l y s i s m a y h e l p 1 9

i n f o r m t h i s t h i r d s t e p i n t h e A l m a n z a a n a l y s i s

, r e l y i n g o n a h o l d i n g t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s

l e g a l l y s u f

f i c i e n t i s

, b y i t s e l f

, i n a p p r o p r i a t e

. I n a n e g r e g i o u s

- h a r m a n a l y s i s

, t h e q u e s t i o n 2 0

i s n o t s i m p l y w h e t h e r

, w h e n v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e v e r d i c t

, t h e j u r y c o u l d

r a t i o n a l l y h a v e f

o u n d p r e d i c a t e f

a c t s t o a l e v e l o f c o n f

i d e n c e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

.

I n s t e a d

, a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m u s t e v a l u a t e t h e l i k e l i h o o d

, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e c o r d a s a w h o l e

,

1 7

Hollander , 406 S.W .3d at 578.

1 8

Id

.

1 9

Id . at 574-76.

2 0

Cf

. Casanova v. State

, 383 S.W .3d 530, 534 & n.18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (conc luding that

the fac t that the evidenc e was leg ally sufficie nt to support the jury v erdic t does not resolve the

eg reg ious harm question under Almanza ); Stuhler v. State

, 218 S.W .3d 709, 719 (Tex. Crim. App.

2007) (sa me).Hollander — 10

t h a t a p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d j u r y w o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h e p r e d i c a t e f

a c t s t o t h e r e q u i s i t e l e v e l o f

c o n f i d e n c e

.

T h e S t a t e m a d e n o d e t e r m i n e d e f f o r t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s g u i l t i n d e p e n d e n t l y

o f t h e S e c t i o n 2 8

. 0 3 ( c ) p r e s u m p t i o n

, a n d t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t i t p r o f f e r e d a s p r e d i c a t e f

a c t s t o

s u p p o r t t h a t p r e s u m p t i o n w a s p u r e l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l

. T h e r e f o r e

, t h e c r i t i c a l i s s u e a t t r i a l w a s

w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e c o u l d p r o v e t h e p r e d i c a t e f a c t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t r e c e i v e d t h e “ e c o n o m i c

b e n e f i t ” o f t h e d i v e r t e d s e r v i c e s

. T h a t

, i n t u r n

, d e p e n d e d o n w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e s h o w e d t h a t

p o w e r h a d b e e n d i v e r t e d t o t h e C i s c o h o u s e d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d s o f t i m e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e a l s o

s h o w e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t r e s i d e d t h e r e

— a n i s s u e v i g o r o u s l y c o n t e s t e d a t t r i a l

.

I n f i n d i n g t h e e v i d e n c e t o b e a t l e a s t l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e p r e d i c a t e f a c t s

,

t h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s e m p h a s i z e d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d l i s t e d t h e C i s c o h o u s e a s h i s

r e s i d e n c e w h e n h e r e c e i v e d t h e m i n o r c i t a t i o n o n A p r i l 2 5

. A n d i n d e e d

, t h e C i s c o h o u s e t h

m a y h a v e b e e n t h e c l o s e s t t h i n g t o a p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n c e h e h a d a t t h a t p o i n t

. B u t

, c o n t r a r y

t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

, t h e g r e a t w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t s h o w t h a t

h e w a s a c t u a l l y r e s i d i n g a t t h e C i s c o h o u s e a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r t i m e

— i n f a c t

, q u i t e t h e o p p o s i t e

.

D e f e n s i v e e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t e d t h a t h e h a d n o t b e e n l i v i n g t h e r e s i n c e a t l e a s t t h e l a t t e r p a r t

o f M a r c h

. M o r e o v e r

, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s g i r l f r i e n d

, d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d s i n F e b r u a r y 2 1

2 1

The court of appea ls trea ted as rele vant to its sufficie ncy analy sis the fac t that the meter box

was discovere d to have bee n t am p er ed with on Marc h 4

, and it there fore looked to the evidenc e t h

showing that the appellant was living in the house shortly befor e that date. Hollander

, 406 S.W .3d

at 575. For two rea sons, we conclude that this was a mistake. First of all, the State’s evidenc e does

not show that power was “diver ted

. . . by installation of two wires for such purpose” on Marc h 4

. t h

There fore

, the evidenc e could not support a conviction for any tampering that occur red on or befor eHollander — 11

a n d M a r c h t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s l i v i n g p a r t

- t i m e i n t h e C i s c o h o u s e

, t h e p o w e r w a s t u r n e d

o f f

. T h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d n o e v i d e n c e t o s h o w o t h e r w i s e

. A r a t i o n a l j u r y c o u l d c h o o s e

, o f

c o u r s e

, t o r e

j e c t t h i s d e f

e n s i v e e v i d e n c e

. B u t i t w o u l d b e a t l e a s t e q u a l l y r a t i o n a l

, o n a r e c o r d

l i k e t h i s

, f

o r a j u r y t o h a r b o r a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e S t a t e h a d e s t a b l i s h e d t h e p r e d i c a t e

f a c t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s “ r e c e i v i n g t h e e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t o f ” t h e d i v e r t e d e l e c t r i c i t y i n

s u p p o r t o f t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

.

A d d r e s s i n g t h e D i s s e n t : D o e s t h e A p p l i c a t i o n P a r a g r a p h F i x t h e P r o b l e m ?

T h e d i s s e n t a r g u e s t h a t

, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n p a r a g r a p h i n t h e j u r y c h a r g e

t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t f i n d i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t g u i l t y

, i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e j u r y

n e c e s s a r i l y f

o u n d t h a t h e w a s t h e o n e w h o “ t a m p e r e d ” w i t h t h e e l e c t r i c m e t e r d e v i c e t o t h e

r e q u i s i t e l e v e l o f c o n f

i d e n c e w i t h o u t r e s o r t t o t h e f l a w e d p r e s u m p t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n

. F r o m 2 2

t h i s p r e m i s e s h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s u f f e r e d n o e g r e g i o u s h a r m

. W e d i s a g r e e

. T h e

that date under the specific alleg ations in the indictment as incorporated in the jury char g e. Second,

and perha ps more critica lly

, there was no evidenc e that power wa s “diver ted” at all on Marc h

4 —the meter had simply been “turne d back on,” acc ording to the power -compa ny witness. Under t h

these cir cumstance s, the statutory presumption contained in Section 28.03(c) would not seem to

apply

, since the presumption can apply only to scena rios in which power is “diver ted from passing

throug h a meter ing de vice[,]” “preve nted from being corre ctly reg istered by a metering device [,] ”

or “ac tivated by any device installed to obta in .

. . power supply without a metering device .” T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 28.03(c) (1)- (3).

2 2

The application para g raph authorized the jury to convict the appellant in the event that it

should find that he:

did then and there

, intentionally or knowing ly tamper with tang ible proper ty

, to-wit:

an elec tric meter device

, without the eff ective consent of the owner

, Russ Gre en, and

d i d t h en an d there cause the pecuniary loss of l ess t han $20,000 to the s aid owner,

and did then and the re intentionally or knowing ly

cause to be di verte d, in whole or

in part, public powe r supply by installation of two wires for such purpose [.]Hollander — 12

i s s u e t o w h i c h t h e p r e s u m p t i o n s p e a k s i s t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r s o n w h o “ t a m p e r e d ” ; h e w h o

r e a p e d a n e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t b y d i v e r t i n g p o w e r a r o u n d a m e t e r i n g d e v i c e i s h e w h o

c o m m i t t e d t h e t a m p e r i n g

. B u t

, a t l e a s t o n t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e

, t h e d i v e r s i o n o f t h e p u b l i c

p o w e r s u p p l y b y w i r i n g a r o u n d t h e m e t e r i n g d e v i c e w a s t h e t a m p e r i n g

. T h e d i s s e n t e r s a r e

m i s t a k e n t o a s s e r t t h a t t h e j u r y ’ s r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h o d i v e r t e d t h e p o w e r s u p p l y

w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y h a v e o c c u r r e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f i t s r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h o

c o m m i t t e d t h e t a m p e r i n g w i t h t h e e l e c t r i c m e t e r d e v i c e

, a n d w a s t h e r e f o r e “ n o t t a i n t e d ” b y

t h e e r r o n e o u s p r e s u m p t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n

. A j u r o r u t i l i z i n g t h e f a u l t y p r e s u m p t i o n t o f

i r s t f i n d 2 3

t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s t h e o n e w h o t a m p e r e d w i t h t h e e l e c t r i c m e t e r d e v i c e w o u l d a l m o s t

c e r t a i n l y h a v e r e g a r d e d i t s e l f a s l i k e w i s e a u t h o r i z e d t o r e l y o n t h e f a u l t y p r e s u m p t i o n t o f

i n d

t h a t h e w a s a l

s o t h e o n e w h o c o m m i t t e d t h a t t a m p e r i n g b y d i v e r t i n g t h e p o w e r s u p p l y a r o u n d

t h e m e t e r i n g d e v i c e b

y t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o

f t w o w i r e s

— s i n c e t h a t w a s

, i n f a c t

, t h e t a m p e r i n g

t h a t t o o k p l a c e

. O n t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e t h e r e i s a v e r y t a n g i b l e d a n g e r t h a t t h e j u r o r s f e l t

f r e e t o f i n d b o t h t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t c o m m i t t e d t h e t a m p e r i n g a n d t h a t h e d i d s o i n t h e

p a r t i c u l a r w a y a l l e g e d ( i

. e

. , w i r i n g a r o u n d t h e m e t e r i n g d e v i c e )

— a n d b o t h t o a l e v e l o f

c o n f i d e n c e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

— s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e t o l d t h a t t h e y c o u l d

“ p r e s u m e ” t h o s e f

a c t s f r o m t h e p r e d i c a t e f

a c t t h a t h e r e a p e d t h e e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t

— b u t

w i t h o u t e v e r h a v i n g f

o u n d t h a t p r e d i c a t e f

a c t i t s e l f b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

, a s t h e l a w

r e q u i r e s

.

2 3

Dissenting O pinion at 2.Hollander — 13

C O N C L U S I O N

I t w a s n e v e r c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e j u r y i n a n y f o r m t h a t i t m u s t b e l i e v e t h e e v i d e n c e

s u b s t a n t i a t i n g t h e p r e s u m p t i o n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t b e f o r e i t c o u l d c o n v i c t t h e

a p p e l l a n t

. N e i t h e r t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e j u r y c h a r g e i t s e l f n o r t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e p a r t i e s s e r v e d

t o c o r r e c t t h e d e f

i c i e n c y

. M o r e o v e r

, t h e f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e p r e s u m p t i o n w e r e h o t l y

c o n t e s t e d

, a n d w e t h e r e f o r e r e j e c t b o t h t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s ’ s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e g r e a t w e i g h t

o f t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h e p r e d i c a t e f a c t s a n d i t s i m p l i c i t c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e j u r y

p r o b a b l y w o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h o s e p r e d i c a t e f a c t s t o b e t r u e t o t h e r e q u i s i t e l e v e l o f

c o n f i d e n c e

— b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

— h a d i t b e e n r e q u i r e d t o d o s o

. C o n s i d e r i n g a l l o f

t h e s e A l m a n z a f

a c t o r s

, w e h o l d t h a t t h e e r r o r i n t h e j u r y c h a r g e b o t h a f f e c t e d t h e v e r y b a s i s

o f t h e c a s e a n d d e p r i v e d t h e a p p e l l a n t o f a v a l u a b l e r i g h t

, u l t i m a t e l y d e p r i v i n g h i m o f a f a i r

a n d i m p a r t i a l t r i a l

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s e r r e d t o c o n c l u d e o t h e r w i s e

. 2 4

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t s o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d

r e m a n d t h e c a u s e f

o r a n e w t r i a l

.

D E L I V E R E D : D e c e m b e r 1 1

, 2 0 1 3

P U B L I S H

2 4

See, e .g.

, Stuhler , 218 S.W .3d at 719.