See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 28.03 (V er non 200 3 & Supp. 2007)
. 1 NO. 07-06 -013 9-CR

IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B MA RC H 4, 20 08

_________

_________

_________

___ ST EVE N ORTIZ, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR TAT LAW OF T OM GRE EN COU NT Y; NO . 05- 03274L2; H ON ORABLE BEN N OLEN , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellantSteven Ortizapp eals his con v iction for t he Class C misd em ean or of fense of cr imi nal mis chi ef. Vi a hi s s ole poi nt of er ro r, appel lan t chal len g es the l eg al and factu al suf f iciency of the evidence to supp ort his conviction. Agreeing the eviden c e is le gally ins uff ic ien t, w e w il l re v erse. Appel lan t was charg ed by i nformati on w it h the mis dem e a n o r o ffense of cr imi nal mis chi ef. Spec ific all y , t he c omplai nt all eg ed he int enti onal ly and k now ing ly damag ed or 1In his mostdi re ct desc ri pti on of the spi t, the d etecti v e tes ti fied th at w hen he w ipe d 2 itoff , “ it ’s st il l bubbl y

and w ater .” 2 dest ro y ed pol ic e depar tment proper

ty , w it hout it s o w ner ’s effect iv e c onsen t, by sp itti ng on it s w ind ow . The proper ty was a pol ic e c ar . Fo llo wing a p p e llant ’s pl ea of not g uil ty , t he ma tter proce ede d to a b ench trial. Ev ide nce showed th at on Sept ember 7, 2005, Det ect iv e J aime Padron of the San Ang elo Pol ic e D epar

tment w as wor ki ng as a sc hool sec ur ity off ic er at San A ng elo ’s C entral Freshm an Cam pus. He testif ied he parked his unm arked Crow n Victoria in its custom ary spac e n e xtt o g a t e s l e a d i n g i n t o t h e s c h o o l y a rd
. L a t e r t h a tm o r n i n g , D e t e ct i v e P a d ron obse rv ed sp it on the pa s s e n ger door and w indo w of his v ehicle. He l ate r w iped the spit from the car

w it h a c lot h. 2 The detecti v e s oug ht to lea rn the ide nti ty of t he one w ho spi t on hi s v ehi cl e. A v ide o re cordin g from a sec ur ity ca mera showed a g ro up of s tudent s walk ing by the v ehi cl e. One stu dent, identi fied as appell ant, came cl oser to the v ehi cl e than the others, and faced the v ehi cl e before walk ing away . Ano th e r st u d e nt s eemed toco nfir m thatappel lan t was the spi tter , butw hen t he det ect iv e and sc hool auth or it ies co nfronted appel lan t, he deni ed i t. Det ect iv e Padron i ss u e d a c it ati on and thi s p ro ceedi ng resul ted. The St ate present ed th e tes ti mony of Det ect iv e Padron, two sc hool off ic ial s and t he ot her st udent. The v ide o recordin g al so w as in ev ide nce, and w as re v iewed s ev era l ti mes du ri ng tr ial
. The other st udent’ s t est imony w as eq uivocal
. Appel lan t tes ti fied, a ck now led g ing thathe was the3

stud entw ho a ppe ared in the record ing approa ching the vehicle, bu t insisting he did not sp it on i t. Appel lan t’ s p arents tes ti fied on his behal f. T he t ri a l c o urt foun d ap pellan t guilty and assesse d a f ine of $10 0 an d cou rt costs. Appel lan t t imel y

fil ed hi s n oti ce of appeal
. Appel lan t c ontends on a ppeal thatthe ev ide nce present ed a t tr ia l w as leg all y and fa ct u a ll y in s u f

f ic ie n tt o su p p o rth is co n vic t io n . In re vie win g i s s u e s o f l e ga l s u f

f ic ie n cy, an appel lat e c our

t v iews t he ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict t o dete rmi ne w hether a rati onal fact fin der

co uld hav e found eac h el ement of the offense b e yon d a re asona ble doubt
. Swear ing en v . St ate, 101 S.W .3d 89, 9 5 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; Con ner v. State, 67 S.W .3d 192 , 197 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 1) ( citi ng Jack son v. Vi rgini a, 44 3 U .S. 307 , 319 , 99 S. Ct. 278 1, 61 L.Ed .2d 560 (1979 )). The Stat e has not filed an a ppel lee ’s br ief. Appel lan t’ s a rg ument in h is br ief, an d the positio n take n by the Stat e during a rg um entt o the t rial cou rt, le ad us to conclu de th is case is o f t h e typ e re p re s e n t e d b y Cur ry v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 3 94 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. Penal Cod e § 2 8.03( a) descr ibe s three c ateg or ies of condu ct cons ti tuti ng the offense of cr imi nal mis chi ef. H e re , as not ed, t he c harg ing i nst ru ment al leg ed appe ll ant c ommitt ed c ri minal mis chi ef byi ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

damag ing or

des troy ing the tang ibl e proper ty of the ow ner , w hic h i s t he conduct pros cr ibe d by§ 28 .03( a) (1 ). Se cti on 28. 03( a) (2 ) prov ide s t hat a person commi ts cr imi nal mis chi ef if “h e i ntent ion allyo r know ing ly tampers w it h theThe s ta tu te a lso req uires the S tate to prov e the co nductwas commi tted w it hout 3 the e ffect iv e c onsen t of the ow ner . Tex
. Penal Cod e Ann. § 28.03( a) ( Ver non 200 3 and Sup p. 20 07). Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 28.06; Bar nes v S tate, N o . 0 1 - 0 6 - 0 0 6 0 0 - C R , 2 0 0 7 WL 4 1559853 (Tex .App .– Hou sto n [1 D is t.] M ay 31, 2007, pet. str ic ken)( mem. op., not st des i g n a t e d fo r p u b l i c a t i o n )
. Th e S t a t e a l l e g e d t h e p e c u n i a r y l o s s h e re w a s les s t han $ 5 0
. 0 0 , m a k i n g t h e o ffe n s e a C l a s s C m i s d e me a n o r . T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 8
. 03 (Verno n 20 03 & Su pp. 200 7). 4 tang ibl e proper

ty of the ow ner

and caus es pecuni ar

y l oss or su bst anti al inc onv eni ence to the o w ner

or a t hird person[ .]” 3 At t ri al, i n par

ti al re spons e to appel lan t’ s a rg u m e n t th e Sta te ha d notsh ow n the spi tti ng ca used pecun iar y l oss , the State arg ued t here was ev ide nce the a cti on had caus ed subs tanti al inc onv eni enc e to Det ect iv e Padron. In hi s a ppel lat e br ief, ap pel lan t ack now led g es the e v ide nce ra is ed a q uest ion of fact w hether the s p itti ng ca used subs tanti al inc onv eni ence. Bu t, appel lan t not es, the is sue is of no moment be caus e the Sta te di d not charge him und er § 28.0 3(a)(2), only under § 28 .03 (a)(1), w hich requires proof of pecu niary loss. 4 W e mu st me asure the suf f iciency of

t he e v iden ce against th e elem ent s of the of fense a s d e fi n e d b y a h y p o t h e t i c a l l y c o r re ct j u r y c h a rg e. Ma lik

v. St ate, 953 S.W .2d 2 34, 2 40 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 97). See al so Gol li har v. Sta te, 46 S .W .3d 243, 246 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001)
. Such a c harg e i ncl udes one t hat “ acc uratel y se ts out the law , is author iz ed by the indictm ent , doe s not un nece ssarily increase th e Sta te's bu rden of proof or unne cessarily re str ict t he St ate' s t heor ies of li abi li ty , and adeq uatel y des cr ibe s t he par

ti cul ar offense for w hich th e d e fe n d a n twas tried.” Id. Th is test is applicab le in ben ch trials as w ell as juryThe St ate n ev er as ser ted a ny proper ty w as dest ro y ed i n thi s c ase. 5F or damag ed pro p erty , t he amountof pecun iar y l oss i s “ the c ostof re pai ri ng or 6 re s t o ri n g t h e d a m a ge d p ro p e rt y wit h in a re a s o n a b le t im e a f t e r th e d a m a ge o c c u rre d
. ” T e x. Pen al Code Ann. § 2 8.0 6(b) (Verno n 200 3). A ppe llant con ten ds also th ere is no evidence of the c ostof re pai ri ng or rest or ing the w ind ow . W e do not reach that cont enti on.

5 tr ial s. Malik, 953 S.W .2d a t 240 ; Har vey v. Sta te, 135 S. W .3d 7 12, 7 16 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 200 3, no pet. ). A hy pothet ic all y

co rrect j ur y ch arg e i n thi s cas e, acc uratel y setti ng out the law and author iz ed by

the charg ing i nst ru ment, Gol li har, 4 6 S. W .3d a t 246 , woul d req uire for conv icti on a findi ng that appel lan t damag ed or des troy ed the w ind ow of the p oli ce car . See 5 Curry, 30 S.W .3d a t 404 ; Ful ler v. St ate , 73 S.W .3d 250 , 255 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 2) (Keller, P.J ., conc ur ri ng ) (“ W hen a sta tute li sts more tha n one method o f committ ing an o ffense, and the ind ictme nt alleges som e, butn ot all, of the sta tuto rily

listed me tho ds, th e Sta te is li mite d to the met hods al leg ed” ). Appel lan t contend s there is no ev ide nce the w ind ow w as damag ed. W e ag re e. 6 The ter m “ damag e” i s n ot s tatut or il y defined so it s meaning is to be deter mined by it s c ommon usa g e. Cul lenv. Sta te, 832 S
. W .2d 788 , 797 (Tex.App .–A ustin 1 992 , w rit re f’d)
. Di cti onar

y defini ti ons of damag e i ncl ude “ los s o r inj ur y to person or

proper ty ,” Bl ack ’s Law Di cti onar

y 393 (7 ed. 1999) , and “ los s o r har m resul ti ng from i nju ry to person, th pro p e rty o r re p u t a t i o n , ” M e r r i a m- W e b s t e r ’ s C o l l e g i a t e D i ct i o n a r y ( 1 1 e d
. 2 0 0 3 )
. I n i ts th com parison of sy non y ms to the word “ injure,” Merriam-W ebst er’s Collegiate D ic t io nary sta tes thatdam a ge “s ug g est s i nju ry thatl ow ers v alu e or

i mpairs u sefulne ss [.] ” As noted, Det ect iv e Padron te sti fied he w ipe d the sp itoff the w ind ow

l ater i n t h e d a y. H e di d not6

t e s t ify t o a n y e f

fe ctit s p re s e n c e h a d o n t h e va lu e o r u s e f u ln e s s o f t h e ve h ic le o r i t s win d o w. Ev en v iew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the cour t’ s f ind ing of

g uil t, w e find no ev ide nce in thi s record tha t t he presenc e of the spi t on the Crow n Vi cto ri a’s w ind ow damag ed i t. W e must concl ude the ev ide nce is leg all y insuffici ent to suppor

t the c onv icti on. Accordin gly , w e s u stain a ppe llant’s issue, rev erse the trial court’s judgmen t and rende r a jud g ment of ac q uittal
.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Publ is h.