## No. PD

-

_______________

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS



## MARK PATRICK McCAY, Petitioner/Appellant

vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent/Appellee

On Appeal in Cause No. F11-00694-K from Criminal District Court No 4

. of Dallas County, Texas

On Petition for Discretionary Review from the Fifth District Court of Appeals of Texas

sitting at Dallas, Texas in Cause No. 05

- 12 -01199- CR



## APPELLANT’S PETITION F OR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Lynn Pride Richardson Katherine A. Drew Chief Public Defender Assistant Public Defender Dallas County, Texas State B ar No. 06117800 Kathi.Drew@dallascounty.org

Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-2 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 (214) 875-2360 (phone) (214) 875-2363 (fax)



### Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellant PD-1306-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/2/2015 9:22:44 AM Accepted 10/2/2015 12:10:18 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK

## iii LIST OF PARTIES

APPELLANT Mark Patrick McCay

APPELLEE The State of Texas

DEFENSE COUNSEL AT TRIAL Jeff Buchwald 7849 Alto Caro Dallas, Texas 75248

Karen Lambert 6060 N. Central Expressway, Suite 560 Dallas, Texas 75206

STATE’S ATTORNEY AT TR IAL Donna Strittmatter & Amy Croft Assistant District Attorneys Dallas County District Attorney‘s Office Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB

- 19 Dallas, Texas 75207

- 4399

APPELLANT ’S ATTORNEY ON APPEAL Katherine A. Drew Dallas County P ublic Defender‘s Office Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB

- 2 Dallas, Texas 75207

- 4399

STATE’S ATTORNEY ON APPEAL Patricia Poppoff Noble Dallas County District Attorney‘s Office Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 N. Riverfro nt Blvd., LB

- 19 Dallas, Texas 75207

- 4399

## iv

TRIAL COURT JUDGE The Honorable John Creuzot (now retired) Criminal District Court No. 4 of Dallas County, Texas Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB

- 19 Dallas, Texas 75207

- 4399

APPELLATE COUR T JUDGES The Honorable Justices Molly Francis, Ada Brown and Craig Stodd a rt Fifth Court of Appeals 600 Commerce St. , Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75202

- 4658

## v TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF PARTIES

................................ ................................ ................................ .. iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

................................ ................................ ..................... vi
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

................................ ............... 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

................................ ................................ .................. 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

.................... 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS

................................ ................................ ........................ 2 QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

................................ ................................ .................... 4
ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 Questions for Review 1 through 4: The Indictment Issues

............................. 5 Question 1: “Theft by Will”

................................ ................................ ............. 5 Question 2: Omitted Pleadings re Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8 Questions 3 & 4: Omitted Pleadings re O wnership and Property

................ 11 Question 5: Sufficiency Standard of Review

................................ .................. 17
CONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 20
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

................................ ................................ .......................... 21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

................................ ................................ ................ 22
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

................................ ................................ ....... 22

## vi INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Brooks v. State
, 323 S.W.3d 893, (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)

................................ ..................... 18, 20 Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)

................................ ............................. 14
Crabtree v. State
, 389 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

................................ ............................... 8
Farmer v. Dodson
, 326 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Dallas 1959, no writ)

................................ ........ 9
Geter v

. State
, 779 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)

................................ ............................. 14 In re Estate of Bendtsen
, 230 S.W.3d 823 (Tex. Ap p.

– Dallas 2007, pet. denied)

................................ ......... 3
Inman v. State
, 650 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)

................................ ...................... 12, 13 Jackson v. Virginia
, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)

................................ ................................ ...................... 18, 20
Lee v. Lee
, 424 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. 1968)

................................ ................................ .................. 9
Lehman v. State
, 792 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)

................................ ............................... 15 McCay v. State
, No. 05

- 12

- 01199

- CR (Tex. App.

– Dallas July 31, 2015)

................................ ..... 2 McCay v. State
, No. 05

- 12

- 01199

- CR (Tex. App.

– Dallas September 9, 2015)

................................ ................................ ...................... 2,6,8,10,12,13,14,16,17,20
Merritt v. State
, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

................................ ............................. 18
Rothermel v. Duncan
, 369 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1963)

................................ ................................ .................. 9
Turner v. Cross
, 83 Tex. 218, 18 S.W. 578 (1892)

................................ ................................ ........... 8

## vii

Wirth v. State
, 361 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

................................ ...................... 18, 20
Statutes
T EX



## . C ODE 

## C RIM



## . P ROC 

## . art. 21.01

................................ ................................ ............. 6
T EX



## . C ODE 

## C RIM



## . P ROC



## . art. 21.08

................................ ................................ ........... 14
T EX



## . C ODE 

## C RIM



## . P ROC 

## . art. 21.09

................................ ................................ ........... 15
T EX



## . E STATES 

## C ODE 

## §252.201

................................ ................................ ................... 8
T EX



## . E STATES 

## C ODE 

## §252.203

................................ ................................ ................... 8
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §1.07(a)(22)(D)

................................ ................................ .......... 11
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §1.07(a)(35)(A)

................................ ................................ .......... 13
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.02

................................ ................................ ........................... 6
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.03

................................ ................................ ........................... 1
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.03(e)

................................ ................................ .................... 16
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.04

................................ ................................ ........................... 6
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.05

................................ ................................ ........................... 7
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.06

................................ ................................ ........................... 7
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.12

................................ ................................ ........................... 7
T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.16

................................ ................................ ........................... 7
T EX 

## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §32.21(d)

................................ ................................ ...................... 7
T EX 

## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §32.43(a)(2)(B)

................................ ................................ ............ 7
T EX 

## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §32.45(a)(1)(A)

................................ ................................ ........... 7
T EX 

## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §32.47(d)(1)

................................ ................................ ................. 7
T EX



## . P ROB



## . C ODE 

## §75

................................ ................................ ................................ 8
R ules
T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P . 66.3(b)

................................ ................................ ............................. 20
T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P. 66.3(c)

................................ ................................ ............................. 20
T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P. 66.3(f)

................................ ................................ ............................. 20
T EX



## . R. A PP 

## . P. 68.4(i)

................................ ................................ ............................... 2

## 1

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW Mark Patrick McCay , Petitioner herein and Appellant

before the Court of Appeals, and re spectfully submits this Petition for

Discretionary Review.

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

This Petition presen ts a case of first impression, i.e.
, whether ―theft by will‖

is a criminal offense and, if it is, the requisites of an indictment for attempted ― theft
by will.‖ This Petition also presents a question of whether, in conducting a

sufficiency review, an appellate court can ignore extensive defense testimony and

rely exclusively on the State‘s ev idence. O ral argument is essential.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was convicted by a jury of attempted theft of property valued in

excess of $200,000 .00 in violation of T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.03 . (CR1: 6,186;

RR5: 1 

## 9,28). The trial court assessed punishment at 10 years‘ imprisonment,

probated for 4 years, and a fine of $1000. 00 (CR1:190).

1 

### The reporter‘s record was not prepared in sequential order and will be referred to as follows: RR1

- RR10: Ten volumes of trial test imony filed on January 7, 2013; RRSupp: Record from trial for June 18, 2012; (preced es RR9 in order of trial); RRSupp 1: Record from pretrial hearing on December 17, 2007; RRSupp 2: Recor d from pretri al hearing on January 11, 2008; RRSupp 3: Record from pretria l hearing on February 15, 2008; RRSupp 4: Record from pretrial hearing on O ctober 19, 2011; RRSupp 5: Record from pretrial hearing on May 31, 2012.

## 2

STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

On July 31 , 20 1 5 , in an opinion slated for publication, the Court of Appeals

for the Fifth District of Texas affirmed Appellant‘s conviction

. McCay v. State
,

No. 05

- 12

- 01199

- CR (Tex. App.

– Dallas July 3 1, 201 5 )

. A motion for rehearing

was filed on August 13, 2015 . That motion was denied on September 9, 2015

. On September 9, 2015, the Court of Appeals also issued an Opinion Nunc

Pro Tunc, slated for publication, correcting clerical error s in the original opinion.

McCay v. State
, No. 05

- 12

- 01199

- CR (Tex. App.

– Dallas September 9, 2015) (not

yet published) (attached as an Appendix as required by T EX



## . R. A PP 

## . P. 68.4(i) )

.

T his Petition is timely i f filed on or before October 9
, 2015

.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

This was a long, hotly contested trial involving extensive, conflicting and

complex testimony. T he C ourt of Appeals ‘ opinion recites many , but not all, of

those facts

. See Appendix and arguments under Question 5, infra.

O n February 22, 2005, Mary Ellen Bendtsen, aged 88, executed a will (the

―Baylor will‖) while she was in Baylor Hospital after suffering a stroke. (RR5: 41;

SX 1). In this will, Bendtsen disinherited her only child, Frances Ann Giron,

leaving Giron only a ―cradle‖ rocking chair. (SX 5). Aside from two other bequests

of personal property, Bendtsen left the bulk of her estate to her longtime friends,

Appell ant and Justin Burgess. (SX 1,3,5). This was consistent with the intent

## 3

Bendtsen had expressed over a long period of time to various close friends.

( RRSupp :155

- 58,183

- 184,187 ; RR9: 49, 59
, 117

- 119
, 166

- 167,174,177).

Bendtsen‘s main asset was a 5/12 interest in a large, old house located at

4949 Swiss Avenue , which everyone knew she loved

. 2 

## (RR5:113 ,117 ; RR6:242 ;
RR7:208; RRSupp:167

- 168 ). As one friend described it: ―Mary Ellen was the

house and the house was Mary Ellen.‖ (RRSupp:155

- 158,168,187). The appraised

value of the house in 2005 was $656,870.00. (RR5:170).

Bendtsen died on March 2, 2005. (RR5:53). That same day , an application to
probate the ―Baylor will‖ was filed with the Dallas County District Clerk

. (RR5:95; SX 5). An application to probate a prior will that had been executed by
Bendtsen in 2002, naming Giron as her sole beneficiary (the ―Florida will‖), was

also filed that day. (RR5:64,80

- 81,86). Ultimately, the ―Baylor will‖ was set aside

by a probate court and the ―Florida will‖ was given effect. 3 

## Appellant was

subsequently charged with and convicted of attempted theft for causing Bendtsen
to execute the ―Baylor will‖ and for filing the ―Baylor will‖ for probate.

2 

### The Swiss Avenue house had been purchased by Bendtsen‘s parents , who left it in equal shares to their three children : Bendtsen, Ann, and Lawrence. (RR5:111

- 114 ,126

- 128,132; RRSupp:167). When Lawrence died, his surviving wife received half his interest, while the other half of his interes t, i.e . 1/6, was divided between Ann and Bendtsen, raising their interest in the house to a 5/12 interest each. (RR5:128; see also SX 11).

3 

### See In re Estate of Bendtsen , 230 S.W.3d 823 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 2007, pet. denied)

.

## 4 QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

Question 1

Is “theft b

y will” a criminal offense?

Question 2

If “theft by wi

l l” is a criminal offense, may an indictment for attempted “theft by will” omit pleadings regarding the testatrix’s testamentary capacity and/or undue influence?

Question 3

If “theft by wi

l l” is a cri

minal offense, may essential theft pleadings regarding ownership be omitted when the offense alleged is an attempted “ theft by will?”

Question 4

If “theft by wi

l l ” is a criminal offense, may essential theft pleadings regarding the description of property be omitted when the offense alleged is an attempted

“ theft by will?”

Question 5

By looking only to the State’s evidence and ignoring defense evidence, d id t he Court of Appeals app ly an improper standard of review in evaluating Appellant’s

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence ?

## 5 ARGUMENT

Qu estions for Review 1 through 4: The Indictment Issues

Questions 1 through 4 center on the indictment 4 

## which alleged as follows:

...with specific intent to commit the offense of Theft of Property of an aggregate value of $200,000 or more, did all of the following, which amounted to more than mere preparation that tended but failed to effect the commission of the said intended Theft, to

- wit: Defendant, with intent to deprive any other person having a greater right of possession of the property than Defendant, upon the death of Mary Ellen Bendtsen, did cause Mary Ellen Bendtsen to execute a will naming Defendant as the beneficiary, to receive her property upon her death; and Defendant did thereafter file said will for probate

. (CR1: 99) (emphasis added). In upholding this indictment, the Court of Appeals

essentially gives the State carte blanche to prosecute a p erson for ―theft by will‖

without specific legislation authorizing such a prosecution and with the most

cur sory of allegations and notice.

Question 1 : “ T

heft by W ill”

The State alleged that Appellant commi tted a crime because he ―caused‖

Bendtsen to make a will in his favor and then filed that will for probate. (CR1: 99).

Appellant argued, both at trial and on direct appeal, that because no law declares

4 

### This prosecution was on

- going for many years and Appellan t was indicted multiple times. (CR1: 6,74,88

- 89,99; CR2: 12,49,142).

## 6

either act illegal
, 5 

## either singularly or in conjuncti on, the indictme nt failed to allege

an offense.

The Court of Appeals recognized Appellant‘s arguments, and agreed to a

point, 6 

## but found that, because the indictment also alleged that Appellant did these

acts ―with specific intent to commit the offense of theft,‖ these acts amounted to

the criminal offense of ―theft by will.‖ McCay , slip op. at 5 . The Court of Appeals

also held that the general theft statute, T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.03, is broad enough
to encompass an offense of ―theft by will‖ without the necessity of legislative

action. Id

. at 8. As that Court st ated: ― The only will contests that can be

 ̳ criminalized ‘ are those in which a will proponent knowingly submits a will for

probate with the specific intention of stealing an estate from others with the legal

right to inherit. ‖ Id

. at 9

. Appellant recognizes that many separate theft offenses which pre

- dated the

1974 Penal Code were subsumed into the general theft statute in 1974. T EX



## . P ENAL



## C ODE 

## §31.02

. What t h e Court of Appeals failed to recognize was that not all forms

of theft were subsumed in to the general statute and many specific forms of theft

survive today as separate offenses. See T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## § 31.04 (theft of service);

5 

### See T EX



### . C ODE 

### C RIM



### . P ROC 

### . ar t. 21.01 (an indictment must accuse the defendant of an act constituting an offense )

.

6 

### The Court of Appeals stated: ―Appellant argues that causing a person to execute a will and filing that will for probate are not illegal acts. If that conduct were standing alone, he would be correct.‖ McCay , slip op. at 5.

## 7

T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §3 1.05 (theft of trade secrets); T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.06 (theft

by check); T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.12 ( theft of multichannel video services ) ; T EX



## .

P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §31.16 (organized retail theft). These offenses all have particularized

elements and, hence, partic ularized pleading requirements.

The Court of Appeals also failed to recognize that o ther Penal Code

provisions specifically criminalize conduct w ithin the realm of wills and probate.

See T EX 

## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §32.21(d) (forging a will); T EX 

## . P ENAL 

## C ODE



## §32.43(a)(2)(B) (commercial bribery by an executor or administrator); T EX 

## . P ENAL



## C ODE 

## §32.45(a)(1)(A) (misapplication of fiduciary property by an executor or

administr ator); T EX 

## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §32.47(d)(1) (altering, destroying or concealing

a will with intent to defraud or harm)

. To date, the Legislature has not chosen to

criminalize the acts o f (1) causing a person to make a will in their favor and/or (2)

filing that will for probate. Moreover, a crime of ―theft by will‖ would necessitate

certain particularized pleadings not provided for in the general theft statute , such as

a lack of testament ary capacity by the testatrix or the exercise of undue influence

by the defendant

. See arguments and authorities under Question 2, infra

. The Court of Appeals further failed to address arguments made by Appellant

that he was required to deliver the ―Baylor will‖ to the clerk of the court that has

jurisdiction over the decedent‘s estate after receiving notice of the death of the

testatrix; criminal penalties exist for a person having a will who fails to deliver it to

## 8

a court. T EX



## . E STATES 

## C ODE 

## §§252.201,252. 203 (formerly T EX



## . P ROB



## . C ODE 

## §75 )

. The State cannot both require conduct and then criminalize that same conduct.

Lastly, b y reading the theft statu t e in such a global manner, the Court of

Appeals has essentially created a new crime and thereby impermissibly legislated

from the bench. See Tu rner v. Cross , 83 Tex. 218, 18 S.W. 578, 579 (1892)

(holding that an appellate court administers the law as it is written and is not

permitted to legislate from the bench); Crabtree v. State , 389 S.W.3d 820 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2012) (Hervey, J. concurring) (same).

Question 2 : O

m itted P leadings re T

estamentary C

apacity an d U

ndue I nfluence

Appellant has argued that, in order to properly charge an offense of ―theft by

will,‖ (assuming such an offense exists) the indictment must, of necessity, have

alleged that Bendtsen lacked testamentary capacity 7 

## or that her testamentary

capacity was undermined by undue influence. The Court of Appeals, however,
held that the indictment need not allege either because (1) ―[t]hese terms...are

rooted i n the civil law and are meaningful in probate proceedings‖ 8 

## and (2)

appropriation of property is unlawful if the owner did not give effective consent.

McCay , slip op. at 6. The logic employed by the Court of Appeals reveals precisely

7 

### Prior indictments had contain ed this allegation . (CR2: 12,49,142).

8 

### The implication is that these terms have no meaning in a criminal prosecution at all. Yet, the State spent the bulk of the trial attempting to prove both concepts. See McCay
, slip op. at 10

- 17.

## 9

why ―theft by will‖ is not a criminal offense subsumed within the general theft

statute or, if it is, why it was not properly alle ged in the instant indictment.

Lack of Testamentary Capacity and/ or Undue Influence Allegations

If Bendtsen had not possessed testamentary capacity because of mental
infirmity on the day the ―Baylor will‖ was executed, then th at will was invalid ab

initio

. Lee v. Lee , 424 S.W.2d 609, 611 (Tex. 1968) . If, however, Bendtsen

possessed testamentary capacity when she executed the ―Baylor will,‖ then her

wishes were paramount, Farmer v. Dodson , 326 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tex. Civ. App.

—
Dallas 1959, no writ) , absent a showing that she had been subjected to undue

influence. Rothermel v. Duncan , 369 S.W.2d 917, 922 (Tex. 1963) . Whether

Bendtsen had testamentary capacity bears directly on whether any act of

Appellant‘s ―caused‖ her to make a will she would not otherwise have made, i.e
.,
whether he exerted undu e influence on Bendtsen and/or had criminal intent to
steal. Appellant cannot be guilty of ―causing‖ Bendtsen to make the ―Baylor will,‖

regardless of what acts he may have engaged in, if any, unless those acts rose to

the level of undue influence. 9

9 

### Indeed, the trial co urt recognized this principle, telling the parties prior to trial: THE COURT: If the State puts on a case that this lady, of her own accord executed a will, whether they talked her into it or not , but of her own accord... that is not a criminal offense as fa r as I‘m concerned. It has to be that all this was done with intent to commit the offense of theft... If this was just a routine will situation, we’re out of here. (RR3: 5) (emphasis added).

## 10

Becaus e the indictment failed to negate testamentary capacity, either

because of mental infirmity or undue influence, the indictment failed to allege

―theft by will.‖ The Court of Appeals failed to recognize that, as written, the

indictment did not allege a crim inal offense and should have been dismissed.

Lack of Effective Consent

The Court of Appeals excused the lack of pleadings regarding testamentary

capacity and undue influence on grounds that appropriation of property is unlawful

if the owner did not give ef fective consent. McCay , slip op. at 6. That Court
, however, missed the point that the indictment did not allege a lack of effective

consent at all . (CR1: 99). Nevertheless, despite this pleading vacuum, the Court of

Appeals opined two ways in which consent may not be effective: 1) if it is given

by someone who by reason of mental defect is known by the actor to be unable to

make reasonable property dispositions or 2) if given by someone who by reason of

advanced age is known by the actor to have a diminished capacity to make

informed and rational decisions about the reaso nable disposition of property.

McCay , slip op. at 6 ( citing to T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §§31.01(3)(C), 31.01(3)(E)).

Recognizing that neither method was alleged in the indictment, the Court of

Appeals reasoned that ―these are questions of proof, and the indictment did not

need to set out the manner and means by which the State would prove the

## 11

attempted theft.‖ Id

. These are questions of proof, however, only if a lack of

effective consen t is alleged, which it was not.

While it is generally true that manner and means need not be alleged in an

indictment, the negation of any exception to an offense is an ―element of the

offe nse‖ which must be alleged. T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §1.07(a)(22)(D)

. In order to

properly allege a ―theft by will‖ crime, it was essential that the indictment allege

either that B endtsen lacked testamentary capacity (in which case she could not give
effective consent to the bequests in the ―Baylor will‖ at all ) or that Appellant

exercised undue influence on Bendtsen (which rendered her consent ineffective).

Because neither a lack o f testamentary capacity, undue influence, n or a lack of

effective consent ( due to advanced age
, mental infirmity or some other reason) was
alleged in this indictment, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the

indic tment was sufficient to allege att empted ―theft by will .‖

Questions 3 & 4: Omitted P leadings re O wnership and P roperty
The indictment alleged that the owner was ― any other person having a

greater right of po ssession of the property than Defendant.‖ 10 

## (CR1: 99) (emphasis

added). The indictment alleged that Appellant sought to appropriate property, but

10 

### Prior indictments alleged that ―Frances Giron, an heir,‖ was the o wner of the property. (CR2: 12,49,142).

## 12

failed to give any description of any of that property

. 11 

## The Court of Appeals erred

by finding that neither ele ment was essential. McCay , slip op. at 5

- 8

. Attempt

The Court of Appeals held that the indictment did not need to allege

ownership or describe the property which was the sub ject of the theft because the

indictment alleged an attempted theft. McCay , slip op. at 5.

Appellant recognizes that there is case law which hol ds, generally, that there

nee d not be an allegation of all constituent elements of the offense of theft in a

charging instrument dealing with the offense of attempted theft. Inman v. State
, 650 S.W.2d 417, 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)

. T he Court of Appeals relied on

Inman to conclude that an indictment for attempted ― theft by will ‖ need not allege

any of the underlying elements of a theft. In so doing, however, that Court failed to

consider th e underlying facts of Inman which render that opinion distinguishable

from the case at bar

. Inman dealt with factual allegations regarding the manner in

which the crime was committed, not with the absence of required pleading

elements. Id

. Additionally, the indictment in Inman , for attempted theft of an

automobile, is further distinguishable because it alleged both a named owner and

11 

### Prior indictments alleged Bendtsen‘s property as ―real property located at 4949 Swiss Avenue‖ and ―furniture, eating utensils, dishware and other items unknown to the grand jury.‖ (CR2: 49,142).

## 13

gave a description of property, neither of which are alleged in the indictment in the

case at bar. Id

. To the best of the undersigned attorney‘s research, this Court has never

specifically held that an indictment for attempted theft may omit allegations both

as to ownership and a descript ion of property which was the subject of the

attempted theft. Yet, the Court of Appeals‘ opinion requires that neither allegation

need be included in an indictment for attempted ―theft by will.‖

The L ack of P leading on O wnership

While not requiring an owne rship allegation, the Court of Appeals

nevertheless held that the allegation of ― any person ‖ who has ―a greater right to

possession of the property‖ was sufficient to allege ownership. McCay , slip op. at

7

- 8 (referencing T EX



## . P ENAL 

## C ODE 

## §1.07(a)(35)(A) ). That Court actually found

dual ownership in that (1) at the time Appellant caused Bendtse n to execute the

Baylor will, she was the owner of the property at issue and (2) because the
property would not pass until Bendtsen‘s death, the owner(s)

— who would be

deprived of possession of the property by A ppellant

— were those who would take

Bendtsen‘s estate in the absence of the ―Baylor will.‖ McCay , slip op. at 6. The

Court of Appeals saw no discrepancy between t hese two divergent conclusions.

Th e Court of Appeals also reasoned that , because the identity of the person
who could take Bendtsen‘s property after her death could change between

## 14

execution of the will and Bendtsen‘s death, and when ―appellant formed the

specific intent to steal Bendtsen‘s estate, he could not ha ve known who would take

that estate but for his conduct
, ‖ the State‘s allegations sufficed. McCay , slip op. at

7

- 8. While this logic m ight have relevance in analyzing the su fficiency of the

evidence, it begs the question of the sufficiency of the indictment because, b y the

time the indictment was returned, the owner of Bendtsen‘s estate was known and

could easily have been identified in the indictment.

Appellant, in written briefs and oral argument to the Court of Appeals, relied

on Byrd v. State 336 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) for the proposition that,

in any theft case, an ow ner must be named. Appellant also relied on T EX



## . C ODE



## C RIM



## . P ROC



## . art. 21.08 , which provide s that, when the alleged theft is from an

estate, ownership may be alleged in the executor, administrator or any heir of the

deceased person. The Court of Appeals‘ opinion, however, failed to discuss, much

less distinguish, either Byrd or the requirements of Article 21.08.

Nor did the Court of Appeals analyze how the jury could be e xpected to
evaluate lack of consent in the absence of a named owner. In a theft prosecution
where the State relies upon a defendant‘s act or omission to negate consent, the

indictment must allege which of the statutory negatives vitiated consent, or the

in dictment will be subject to a timely motion to quash for lack of notice. G e ter v

.

State , 779 S.W.2d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) . The State relied on specifi c

## 15

acts to prove attempted theft, i.e ., that Appellant (1) ― caused ‖ the execution of the

―Baylor will ‖ and (2) filed that will for probate. (CR1: 99). Specific pleadings

regarding an owner‘s lack of effective cons ent were, therefore, essential.

Furthermore, t he Court of Appeals did not discuss the lack of a named

owner in the indictment vis

- à

- vis the jury charge, which references an ―owner‖

multiple times and which permitted conviction only if the jury found that the

attempted appropriation was ―without the owner’s effective consent.‖ (CR1: 178

- 180) (emphasis added). W ithout an allegation of a n amed owner, and without an

allegation of a lack of effective consent of that owner, 12 

## the jury could not evaluate

whether Appellant had attempted an unl awful appropriat ion of property.

The L ack of a D escription of P roperty
Specific allegations regarding property are required in a theft indictment.

T EX



## . C ODE 

## C RIM



## . P ROC 

## . art. 21.09 . A th eft conviction can never rest
, in whole or in

part , upon theft of property not alleged in the indictment as stolen. Lehman v.

State , 792 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)

. Yet, t h is indictment failed to

describe any property which was the su bject of the alleged attempted theft.

Appellant‘s research reveals no case law which dispenses with a description of

12 

### It is easy to und erstand defense counsel‘s objection to the jury charge: ―the jury doesn‘t know who to apply the effective consent to, to Mary Ellen Bendtsen or whether it applies to the heirs.‖ (RR9: 200

- 201).

## 16

property in an attempted theft. Yet, the Court of Appe als‘ opinion failed to discuss

the requirements of Article 21.09.

D e spi t e finding that the indictment did not need to describe the property at

all, t he Court of Appeals nevertheless held that the ―property at issue was the

property in Bendtsen‘s estate, th at is, whatever she owned when she died.‖ McCay
,

s lip op. at 6. Relying on civil law, th at Court stated that the allegation in the

indictment

– ―her property at her death‖

– was sufficient to allege the property

Appellant intended to steal. 13 

## Id . at 7.

T hat Court‘s logic ignored Appellant‘s arguments that theft is a valuation

crime and the degree of theft is dependent on the value of the property. T EX



## . P ENAL



## C ODE 

## §31.03(e) . The indictment alleged that Appellant attempted to steal
―property‖ in an aggregate amount of $200,000 .00 or more. (CR1: 99). The value

of the property in question can hardly be determined in the a bsence of a description

of that property. Certainly, the value was crucial to a jury‘s determination of
whether the aggregate value of the property was in excess of $200,000.00 as

13 

### In this regard, the Court of Appeals‘ language appears to b less an allegation of a ―contingent crime,‖ i.e ., forming intent to steal based on some potential, as yet unascertained future benefit.

## 17

alleged 14 

## or whether a lesser degree of theft , on which the jury was charged, (CR1:

183,186)
, was a more appropriate verdict.

This indictment was returned many years after Bendtsen died

. T he property

in her estate was known

. The fact that the making of the ―Baylor will‖ and the

filing of that will were ―separated by time,‖ McCay , slip op. at 8, does not excuse

the State‘s failure to plead facts affirmatively known prior t o the return of the

indictment.

Question 5 : S ufficiency S tandard of Revie w
In rejecting Appellant ‘s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to

support his conviction for attempted theft , the Court of Appeals looked only to the

State‘s evidence and did not refe r to or discuss the extensive defense testimony

introduced at trial to refute the prosecution‘s case. McCay , slip op

. at 9

- 17. T he

Court of Appeals thus applied an improper standard of review.

While it is true that an appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict, that court must review all of the evidence to determine

whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

14 

### The only proof at trial of the value of Bendtsen‘s property, other than a $65,000 bank account with rights of survivo rship to Giron , was testimony that her 5/ 12 interest in the Swiss Avenue house was worth $273,695.00. (RR5: 170). Because Appellant and Burgess were bequeathed Bendtsen‘s property in equal shares, (SX 5), Appellant‘s potential interest in the house, i.e., 5/24, could only be valued at $136,847.50 . U nder this indictment, it cannot be known what other property the State relied on to meet the $200,000.00 threshold.

## 18

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) ;

Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) . Evaluating the

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict is not the same as looking only
to the State‘s evidence of guilt and ignoring the defense evidence. An appe llate
court cannot only emphasize evidence that favors it‘s holding while ign oring

controverting testimony. See Merritt v. State , 368 S.W.3d 516, 526 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2012) (finding that a court of appeals incorrectly applied the Jackson
standard by employing a ―divide

- and

- conquer‖ approach which failed to consider

all of the evidence); Wirth v. State , 361 S.W.3d 694, 697 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

(reversing a court of appeals for selectively emphasiz ing ―snippets of the record

that ostensibly favored its holding‖ while ign oring cont roverting testimony).

Here, t he Court of Appeals ignored defense evidence which showed that

Bendtsen and her daughter had become estranged in the years preceding

Bendtsen‘s death. (RR7:78,122; RR9:29

- 30,55). E vidence of Bendtsen‘s continuity

of intent, i.e

. , that over a period of time Bendtsen had expressed a desire to leave

her property, particularly her house, to Appellant
, 15 

## was similarly ignored.

(RRSupp:155

- 158,183

- 184,187; RR9:49,59,117

- 119,166

- 167,174,177). T hat Court

failed to acknowledge the content s of State‘s Exhibit 1, a video of the execution of

15 

### Indeed, in its Brief on direct appeal, the State even admitted that Bendtsen ―had expressed a desire to leave her estate to Appellant.‖ (State‘s Brief at 4; see also State‘s Brief at 16).

## 19

the will, wherein Bendtsen‘s intent is unequivocally expressed, i.e ., that she did not
want her daughter to inherit her estate but wanted to leave her property to ―the

boys,‖ i.e ., t o Appellant and Justin Burgess.

The defense evidence at trial
, and State‘s Exhibit 1

, are relevan t to whether

or not Appellant had criminal intent in any of his actions vis

- à

- vis Bendtsen and

the making of the ―Baylor will

, ‖ whether Bendtsen had the capacity to execute the

will
, and whether she consented to the dispositions made by the ―Baylor will.‖ The

defense evidence at trial establish ed that the ―Baylor will‖ was a valid expression

of Bendtsen‘s wishes regarding her property. The defense demonstrated that

Bendtsen did not l ack testamentary capacity, nor was she deceived, coerced, forced
or threatened into signing the ―Baylor will.‖ The defense demonstrated that none of

Appellant‘s actions were done with the intent to steal Bendtsen‘s estate or

influence her decision to make a will in his favor but, rather, that Bendtsen freely

sought to give Appellant a gift of her property. T he defense affirmatively

established that Bendtsen was a proud, independent woman who, being angry at

her daughter and still possessing sufficient menta l capacity, acted on her long held

desire to give her property to two dear friends as opposed to the daughter who had

angered and humiliated her at the end of her life. (RRSupp:151,208,209

- 228;

RR9:5

- 101,102

- 130,155

- 190). Yet, the Court of Appeals‘ opinion makes it appear

as if no defense evidence was presented at all. As such, that opinion fails to comply

## 20

with the dictates of Jackson and Brooks and thus is in conflict with those decisions

.

T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P. 66.3(c)

. Additionally, the Court of Appeals, in several instances, misstated and/or

mis

- characterized key evidence; these errors were pointed out, in detail, in

Appellant‘s Motion for Rehearing, pp. 6

- 12. Yet, the only correction s made by that

Court in the Opinion Nunc Pro Tunc were to change the date originally listed for

Bendtsen‘s stroke and the execution of the ―Baylor will

. ‖ McCay , slip op. p. 3.

Consequently, this Court should conduct an independent review of the sufficiency

of the evidence in this case. Wirth , 361 S.W.3d at 698. In the alternative, this Cou rt
should remand this case to the Court of Appeals with instruction s to condu ct a
proper sufficiency review.

CONCLUSION

The Court of Appeals, by finding that ―theft by will‖ is a criminal offense in

the absence of specific le gislative authority, and by further finding that an
indictment for attempted ―theft by will‖ can dispense with many essential pleading

requirements, has decided an important question of state law which has not been,

but should be, addressed by this Court. T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P . 66.3(b)

. Additionally,

because the Court of Appeals ignored critical issues raised by Appellant, as well as

extensive defense evidence, this Court should exercise it s supe rvisory powers.

T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P. 66.3(f)

. The exercise of this Court‘s supervisory powers is further

## 21

essential because , a s an opinion slated for publication, the Court of Appeals‘

opinion fails to serve as a guide to bench and bar in any future prosecutions

. 16 

## Id

.

P RAYER FOR RELIEF

For the reasons herein alleged, Appellant prays that this Court will grant his

Petition for Discretionary Review and, upon r eview, reverse the decision of the

Court of Appeals.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Katherine A. Drew Lynn Richardson Katherine A. Drew C hief Public Defender Assistant Public Defe nder Dallas County, Texas State Bar No. 06117800 Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB

- 2 Dallas, Texas 75207

- 4399 (214) 875

- 236 0 (phone) (214) 875

- 2363 (

fax) Kathi.Drew@dallascounty.org

16 

### Justin Burgess is currently charged with attempted theft, as is Edwin Olsen, the attorney who drafted the ―Baylor‖ will and prepared the application for probat e. Neither co

- defendant has yet gone to trial.

## 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Petition For Discretionary Review was served on Patricia Poppoff Noble , Attorney for the State, Dallas County District Attorney‘s Office, 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB

- 19, 10th Floor, Dallas, Texas, 75207, by electroni c transmission on the 2 day of October , 20 1 5

. I further certify that a true copy of the foregoing Petition For Discretionary Review was served on Lisa M cMinn , the State‘s Prosecuting Attorney, P. O. Box 13046, Austin, Texas 78711

- 3046 , by electronic transmission on the 2 day of October , 20 1 5

. /s/ Kathe rine A. Drew Katherine A. Drew

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that , in accordance with the terms of T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P . 9.4(i) (1), the word count in this document, which is prepared in Microsoft W ord 2010 , is 4,421 , exclusive of the caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, statement of procedural history, signature, pro of of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix

.

/s/ Katherine A. Drew Katherine A. Drew

# APPENDIX

McCay v. State , No. 05-12-01199-CR (Tex. App. – Dallas September 9, 2015) (not yet published).A ff

i r me d a nd Opini o n F il e d S e p tem b er 9, 2015

In Th e

N o. 05

- 12

- 01199 -CR

MAR K MCCAY , A pp e ll a n t

V

. THE ST A TE O F TE XA S , A pp e ll ee

On A pp e a l fr o m t h e Cr i m in a l D is tr i ct C o u rt N o. 4

D a ll a s C o un t y, T e xa s T r i a l C o u rt C a us e N o. F 11

- 00694

- K



### O P I N I O N NUN C PR O T UN C

B ef o re J u s ti ce s F ra n c is
, B r o w n, a nd St odd ar t O p i n i on by J u sti ce F ra n c is
A j u r y f ound a pp e ll a n t M ar k M c C a y gu ilt y o f a tt e m p t e d t h ef t o f p r op er t y v a l u e d a t m o re

t h a n $200,000. T h e t r i a l c ou r t a ss e ss e d a pp e ll a n t ’ s pun is h m e n t a t t e n y ear s i n p r is on, p r ob a t e d

f o r f ou r y ear s , a nd a $1000 f

i n e

. I n f ou r iss u e s , a pp e ll a n t c on t e nd s: t h e i nd i c tm e n t ( 1 ) fa il e d t o

a ll e g e a n o ffe n s e a nd ( 2 ) fa il e d t o p r ov i d e c on stit u ti on a ll y s u ff i c i e n t no ti ce o f a n o ffe n s e ; a nd ( 3 )

t h e e v i d e n ce is l e g a ll y i n s u ff i c i e n t t o s uppo r t

h is c onv i c ti on ; a nd ( 4 ) t h e t r i a l c ou r t a bu s e d its

d is cre ti on by a d mitti ng e v i d e n ce o f a n e x t ra n e ou s o ffe n s e

. We aff i r m t h e t r i a l c ou r t ’ s j udg m e n t

.

B a c k g r o und

I n J a nu ar y 2005, M ar y E ll e n B e nd ts e n wa s e i gh t y -e i gh t y ear s o l d a nd li v e d a l on e i n a

hou s e on Da ll a s ’ s h ist o r i c S w iss A v e nu e , w h ere s h e h a d re si d e d a lm o st h er e n ti re li fe

. B e nd ts e n

wa s w i do we d t we n t y y ear s ear li er

. Her on l y c h il d, a d a ugh t er , li v e d i n t h e Da ll a s area , a s d i d–2–

B e nd ts e n ’ s sist er a nd n e ph ew

. T h is ca s e ce n t er s on B e nd ts e n ’ s re l a ti on s h i p w it h a pp e ll a n t a nd

h is bu si n e ss p ar t n er , J u sti n B u r g e ss

. T h e t w o young m e n were a n ti qu e d ea l er s , a nd ov er a p er i od

o f t e n o r s o y ear s , t h e y b eca m e fre qu e n t c o m p a n i on s o f B e nd ts e n. C er t a i n d e t a ils o f t h is

re l a ti on s h i p are d is c u ss e d m o re f u ll y b e l o w w h e n we a n a l y ze t h e s u ff i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n ce , bu t

t h e fra m ew o r

k o f e v e n ts i n ear l y 2005 are n ece ss ar y t o ou r d is c u ssi on a t t h e ou ts e t

.

O n J a nu ar y 12, 2005, B e nd ts e n fe ll a nd h it h er h ea d w h il e re t r i e v i ng h er m a il

. S h e wa s

t a k e n t o B a y l o r H o s p it a l i n Da ll a s

. Tw o d a y s l a t er , s h e si gn e d a po wer o f a tt o r n e y a ll o w i ng h er

d a ugh t er , F ra n ce s G i r on, t o m a k e m e d i ca l d ec isi on s f o r h er

. B e nd ts e n re m a i n e d a t B a y l o r f o r

n i n e d a y s a nd wa s t rea t e d f o r h er h ea d i n j u r y. A pp e ll a n t a nd B u r g e ss were fre qu e n t v isit o r s

.

A bou t a wee k af

t er s h e wa s a d mitt e d, B e nd ts e n ’ s do c t o r e xp l a i n e d t o h er fa mil y t h a t s h e w ou l d

n ee d t o s p e nd si x wee k s a t a re h a b ilit a ti on fac ilit y b ef o re s h e c ou l d re t u r n ho m e

. O n J a nu ar y 18,

2005, w h il e G i r on a nd h er n e ph ew were v isiti ng fac iliti e s f o r B e nd ts e n ’ s re h a

b ilit a ti on, B e nd ts e n

si gn e d a s ec ond po wer

o f a tt o r n e y. T h is do c u m e n t wa s d raf t e d by a tt o r n e y E d w i n O ls e n, a

fr i e nd o f a pp e ll a n t , a nd n a m e d a pp e ll a n t t o ac t on B e nd ts e n ’ s b e h a l f

. F r o m t h a t d a y f o rwar d,

a pp e ll a n t p re v e n t e d B e nd ts e n ’ s fa mil y fr o m v isiti ng h er i n t h e ho s p it a l

. O n J a nu ar y 21,

a pp e ll a n t h a d B e nd ts e n a d mitt e d t o A s h l e y C ou r t , a s k ill e d nu r si ng fac ilit y. A pp e ll a n t i n st r u c t e d

t h e st aff a t A s h l e y C ou r t

no t t o a ll o w G i r on t o v isit h er m o t h er

.

I n re s pon s e t o t h e s e d e v e l op m e n ts , G i r on i n iti a t e d a l e g a l p r o cee d i ng s ee k i ng t o b ec o m e

f i r st t h e t e m po rar y, a nd t h e n p er m a n e n t , gu ar d i a n o f h er m o t h er

. T h e c ou r t a ppo i n t e d a n a d

lit e m f o r B e nd ts e n a nd h e l d a s er i e s o f h ear i ng s i n t h e i n iti a l t e m po rar y gu ar d i a n s h i p p r o cee d i ng.

Af t er t h e f i r st h ear i ng on J a nu ar y 31, a t w h i c h B e nd ts e n t e sti f i e d a g a i n st t h e gu ar d i a n s h i p,

a pp e ll a n t a nd B u r g e ss b r ough t h er b ac k t o h er S w iss A v e nu e ho m e ra t h er t h a n re t u r n i ng h er t o

A s h l e y C ou r t

. T h e m e n ho st e d a l ar g e p ar t y t h a t e v e n i ng a t B e nd ts e n ’ s ho m e

.–3–

Tw o m o re h ear i ng s were h e l d on t h e iss u e o f t e m po rar y gu ar d i a n s h i p. Af t er t h e t h i r d

h ear i ng, t h e p r ob a t e c ou r t d e n i e d t h e t e m

po rar y gu ar d i a n s h i p, a lt hough t h e p er m a n e n t

gu ar d i a n s h i p p r o cee d i ng c on ti nu e d.

O n F e b r u ar y 22, B e nd ts e n wa s a t ho m e , v isiti ng w it h D i x i e T i d we ll (a fr i e nd o f B e nd ts e n

a nd a pp e ll a n t ) a nd R o s e Cli n e (a c o m p a n i on h i re d by a pp e ll a n t t o st a y w it h B e nd ts e n )
, w h e n s h e

s u ffere d a m a ssi v e st r ok e

. T i d we ll ca ll e d a pp e ll a n t

. W h e n h e a nd B u r g e ss arr i v e d, t h e y ca ll e d

a n a m bu l a n ce , a nd B e nd ts e n wa s a g a i n t a k e n t o B a y l o r

. O n t h a t s a m e d a y, a pp e ll a n t a nd

B u r g e ss st ood a t t

h e f oo t o f B e nd ts e n ’ s ho s p it a l b e d w h il e O ls e n rea d h er t h e w ill h e h a d d raf t e d

a nd h e l p e d h er m a k e a m ar k on t h e w ill t o e x ec u t e it

. T h e e v e n t wa s v i d e o rec o r d e d by T i d we ll;

s h e a nd Cli n e s er v e d a s w it n e ss e s

. T h e w ill n a m e d T i d we ll e x ec u t r i x a nd l ef t B e nd ts e n ’ s e st a t e

t o a pp e ll a n t a nd B u r g e ss w it h t h ree e x ce p ti on s: h er j ewe l r y t o l ong tim e fr i e nd, B ea Gra y s on,

e x ce p t on e p i ece t o b e c ho s e n by Cli n e , a nd a r o c k i ng c h a i r t o G i r on. B e nd ts e n d i e d i n t h e

ho s p it a l on M arc h 2, 2005. O n t h e m o r n i ng o f M arc h 3, a pp e ll a n t a nd B u r g e ss f

il e d t h e B a y l o r

w ill w it h t h e p r ob a t e c ou r t

. La t er t h a t d a y, G i r on ’ s a tt o r n e y f

il e d t h e w ill B e nd ts e n h a d e x ec u t e d

i n 2002 i n Fl o r i d a , w h ere G i r on wa s li v i ng a t t h e tim e

. T h e Fl o r i d a w ill l ef t B e nd ts e n ’ s e st a t e t o

G i r on. G i r on p re v a il e d i n t h e w ill c on t e st b eca u s e t h e B a y l o r w ill wa s no t e x ec u t e d w it h p r op er

st a t u t o r y f

o r m a liti e s: a lt hough a pp e ll a n t h a d T i d we ll a nd Cli n e a tt e nd t h e w ill e x ec u ti on a s

w it n e ss e s , t h e y d i d no t si gn i n B e nd ts e n ’ s p re s e n ce , a nd a pp e ll a n t a nd T i d we ll s ub s e qu e n tl y t ook

t h e w ill fr o m t

h e ho s p it a l a nd h a d it no t ar i ze d a s i f t h e no t ar y h a d b ee n p re s e n t w h e n t h e w ill wa s

si gn e d. T h e no t ar y wa s M ar i a n G i b s on, a no t h er o f a pp e ll a n t ’ s fr i e nd s

.

I n F e b r u ar y 2006, t h e St a t e f

il e d its i nd i c tm e n t c h ar g i ng a pp e ll a n t w it h a tt e m p t e d t h ef t o f

B e nd ts e n ’ s e st a t e

. A pp e ll a n t we n t t o t r i a l a nd wa s f ound gu ilt y o f a tt e m p t e d t h ef t o f p r op er t y

v a l u e d a t m o re t

h a n $200,000. T h e t r i a l c ou r t a ss e ss e d h is pun is h m e n t a t t e n y ear s i n p r is on a nd–4–

t h e n s u s p e nd e d t h e s e n t e n ce , p l ac i ng a pp e ll a n t on p r ob a ti on f

o r f ou r y ear s , re qu i r i ng a pp e ll a n t t o

s er v e t h i r t y d a y s i n t h e Da ll a s C oun t y j a il
, a nd im po si ng a f i n e o f $1,000. T h is a

pp ea l f o ll o we d.

Su ff i c i e n c y o f t h e Indi ctme n t

I n h is f i r st t w o iss u e s , a

pp e ll a n t c h a ll e ng e s t h e t

r i a l c ou r t ’ s d e n i a l o f

h is m o ti on t o qu a s h

t h e i nd i c tm e n t

. He ar gu e s t h e i nd i c tm e n t wa s i n s u ff i c i e n t b eca u s e it fa il e d t o a ll e g e a n o ffe n s e

a nd fa il e d t o g i v e h im s u ff i c i e n t no ti ce o f t h e c h ar g e s a g a i n st h im

. B o t h t h e U n it e d St a t e s a nd

Te x a s C on stit u ti on s a ss u re a n acc u s e d t h e r i gh t t o no ti ce o f t h e c h ar g e s a g a i n st

h im

. U

. S

.

C ON S T

. a m e nd. VI ; T EX

. C ON S T

. ar t

. I , § 10. T h e c h ar g i ng i n st r u m e n t m u st b e s p ec i f i c e nough

t o i n f o r m t h e acc u s e d o f t h e n a t u re o f t h e acc u s a ti on a g a i n st h im s o t h a t

h e m a y p re p are a

d efe n s e

. S t

a t e v

. M o ff , 154 S

. W .3d 599, 601 (Te x. C r im

. A pp. 2004 )

. T h e s u ff i c i e n c y o f a n

i nd i c tm e n t

p re s e n ts a qu e sti on o f l aw ; we re v i ew t h e t r i a l c ou r t ’ s r u li ng on s u ff i c i e n c y d e novo.

S m it h v . S t

a t e , 309 S

. W .3d 10, 13–14 (Te x. C r im

. A pp. 2010 )

.

A pp e ll a n t wa s c h ar g e d w it h a tt e m p t e d t h ef t o f p r op er t y v a l u e d a t

$200,000 o r m o re

.

B o t h p ar ti e s ac kno w l e dg e a pp e ll a n t ’ s i nd i c tm e n t wa s a m e nd e d a nu m b er o f tim e s

. T h e

i nd i c tm e n t

on w h i c h h e we n t t o t r i a l
, a nd w h i c h we m u st re v i ew f

o r s u ff i c i e n c y, c h ar g e d t h a t

a pp e ll a n t:

w it h s p ec i f i c i n t e n t t o c o mmit t h e o ffe n s e o f t h ef t o f p r op er t y o f a n a gg re g a t e

v a l u e o f $200,000 o r m o re , d i d a ll o f t h e f o ll o w i ng, w h i c h a m oun t e d t o m o re t h a n

m ere p re p ara ti on t h a t t e nd e d bu t fa il e d t o effec t t h e c o mmissi on o f s a i d i n t e nd e d
t h ef t , t o w it: Defe nd a n t , w it h i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e a ny o t h er p er s on h a v i ng a g rea t er

r i gh t t o po ss e ssi on o f t h e p r op er t y t h a n Defe nd a n t upon t h e d ea t

h o f M ar y E ll e n B e nd ts e n, d i d ca u s e M ar y E ll e n B e nd ts e n t o e x ec u t e a w ill , n a mi ng Defe nd a n t a s
a b e n ef i c i ar y t o rece i v e h er

p r op er t y upon h er

d ea t h ; a nd Defe nd a n t

d i d t h ereaf

t er f il e s a i d w ill f

o r p r ob a t e

.
A pp e ll a n t c h a ll e ng e s t h e f o r m o f t h is i nd i c tm e n t

on g r ound s t h a t it fa il e d t o a ll e g e a n ill e g a l ac t ,

fa il e d t o i d e n ti f

y t h e o w n er

o f t h e p r op er t y a pp e ll a n t a tt e m p t e d t o st ea l
, a nd fa il e d t o d e s cr i b e t h e

p r op er t y t h a t wa s t h e s ub

j ec t o f t h e a tt e m

p t e d t h ef t

.–5–

A p er s on c o mmits t h ef

t i f h e un l awf

u ll y a pp r op r i a t e s p r op er t y w it h i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e t h e

o w n er o f t h a t p r op er t y. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 31.03 (a) (We st S upp. 2014 )

. A p er s on

c o mmits t h e cr imi n a l o ffe n s e o f a tt e m p t i f
, w it h s p ec i f

i c i n t e n t t o c o mmit a n o ffe n s e , h e do e s a n

ac t a m oun ti ng t o m o re t h a n m ere p re p ara ti on t h a t t e nd s , bu t fa ils
, t o effec t t h e c o mmissi on o f t h e

o ffe n s e i n t e nd e d. I

d. § 15.01 (a) (We st

2011 )

. A n i nd i c tm e n t a ll e g i ng a n a tt e m p t is s u ff i c i e n t i f

it a ll e g e s eac h e l e m e n t

o f t h e o ffe n s e o f cr imi n a l a tt e m p t

. E pp s v . S t a t e , 811 S

. W .2d 237, 242

(Te x. A pp.— Da ll a s 1991, no p e t

. )

. A n i nd i c tm e n t f o r cr imi n a l a tt e m

p t is no t f

und a m e n t a ll y

d efec ti v e f

o r fa il u re t o a ll e g e t h e c on stit u e n t e l e m e n ts o f t h e o ffe n s e a tt e m p t e d. Y oung v . S t a t e ,
675 S

. W .2d 770, 771 (Te x. C r im

. A pp. 1984 )

. T hu s , a pp e ll a n t ’ s i nd i c tm e n t c h ar g i ng a tt e m p t e d

t h ef t wa s no t re qu i re d t o a ll e g e a ll c on stit u e n t e l e m e n ts o f t h e o ffe n s e o f t h ef t

. S ee I n m an v

.

S t a t e , 650 S

. W .2d 417, 420 (Te x. C r im

. A pp. 1983 )

. I n st ea d, t h e i nd i c tm e n t n ee d e d on l y t o

a ll e g e t h a t a pp e ll a n t , w it h t h e s p ec i f i c i n t e n t t o c o mmit a t h ef t , c o mmitt e d ac ts a m oun ti ng t o

m o re t h a n p re p ara ti on—h ere , ca u si ng B e nd ts e n t o e x ec u t e t h e B a y l o r w ill a nd f ili ng it f o r

p r ob a t e

— w h i c h t e nd e d, bu t fa il e d, t o effec t t h e c o mmissi on o f t h e t h ef t

. S ee i d.

A pp e ll a n t ar gu e s t h a t ca u si ng a p er s on t o e x ec u t e a w ill a nd f ili ng t h a t w ill f

o r p r ob a t e

are no t ill e g a l ac ts

. If t h a t c ondu c t were st a nd i ng a l on e , h e w ou l d b e c o rrec t

. B u t t h e i nd i c tm e n t

c h ar g e d t h a t a pp e ll a n t ac t e d “w it h s p ec i f i c i n t e n t t o c o mmit t h e o ffe n s e o f t h ef t

. ” A t t h e h ear i ng

on a pp e ll a n t ’ s m o ti on t o qu a s h, t h e t r i a l c ou r t r u l e d t h a t t h e St a t e h a d a ll e g e d a n o ffe n s e ,

st re ssi ng t

h a t p r oo f o f t h e o ffe n s e w ou l d t u r n on p r oo f o f a pp e ll a n t ’ s s p ec i f

i c cr imi n a l i n t e n t

.

We a g ree

. If

p erf o r m e d w it h t h e re qu isit e cr imi n a l i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e w ho e v er w ou l d o t h erw is e

h a v e t a k e n B e nd ts e n ’ s p r op er t y af t er h er d ea t h, t h e c ondu c t a ll e g e d i n t h is i nd i c tm e n t

— ca u si ng

B e nd ts e n t o e x ec u t e a w ill i n h is fa vo r a nd t h e n f ili ng t h e w ill f

o r p r ob a t e

— a m oun ts t o a

cr imi n a l o ffe n s e

.–6–

A pp e ll a n t a ls o ar gu e s t h e i nd i c tm e n t is i n s u ff i c i e n t b eca u s e t

h e St a t e d i d no t p l ea d e it h er

t h a t B e nd ts e n l ac k e d “ t e st a m e n t ar y ca p ac it y ” o r t h a t a pp e ll a n t e x erc is e d “ undu e i n f l u e n ce” ov er

h er

. T h e s e t er ms , t hough, are r oo t e d i n t h e c i v il l aw a nd are m ea n i ng f u l i n p r ob a t e p r o cee d i ng s

.

I n a cr imi n a l p r o cee d i ng, t h e St a t e ca n p r ov e t h e acc u s e d a tt e m p t e d t o a pp r op r i a t e p r op er t y

un l awf u ll y i n m a ny wa y s

. O n e o f t ho s e wa y s is by p r ov i ng t h e o w n er d i d no t g i v e effec ti v e

c on s e n t

. S ee T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 31.03 ( b )( 1 ) (We st S upp. 2014 ) (“A pp r op r i a ti on o f

p r op er t y is un l awf

u l i f it is w it hou t t h e o w n er’ s effec ti v e c on s e n t

. ”)

. A nd t h e c od e e xp l a i n s t h a t

c on s e n t is no t effec ti v e i f it is g i v e n by s o m e on e w ho by rea s on o f m e n t a l d efec t is kno w n by t h e

ac t o r t o b e un a b l e t o m a k e rea s on a b l e p r op er t y d is po siti on s

. I d. § 31.01 ( 3 )( C )

. L i k ew is e ,

c on s e n t is no t effec ti v e i f g i v e n by s o m e on e w ho by rea s on o f a dv a n ce d a g e is kno w n by t h e

ac t o r t o h a v e a d imi n is h e d ca p ac it y t o m a k e i n f o r m e d a nd ra ti on a l d ec isi on s a bou t t h e rea s on a b l e

d is po siti on o f

p r op er t y. I

d. § 31.01 ( 3 )(E)

. B u t t h e s e are qu e sti on s o f p r oo f
, a nd t h e i nd i c tm e n t

d i d no t n ee d t o s e t

ou t t h e m a nn er a nd m ea n s by w h i c h t h e St a t e w ou l d p r ov e t h e a tt e m p t e d

un l awf u l a pp r op r i a ti on. S ee Ge i ck v . S t a t e , 349 S

. W .3d 542, 546–47 (Te x. C r im

. A pp. 2011 )

.

N o r , a s we h a v e st a t e d, d i d t h e i nd i c tm e n t n ee d t o s e t

ou t t h e s p ec i f i c e l e m e n ts o f t h e

t h ef t t h a t wa s a tt e m

p t e d. S ee Y

oung , 675 S

. W .2d a t

771. De s p it e a

pp e ll a n t ’ s c o m p l a i n ts t o t h e

c on t rar y, t

h e i nd i c tm e n t wa s no t re qu i re d t o d e s cr i b e t h e p r op er t y a t iss u e w it h s p ec i f i c it y o r t o

n a m e t h e o w n er

o f t h a t p r op er t y. T ho s e are c on stit u e n t e l e m e n ts o f t h e o ffe n s e o f t h ef t , no t

cr imi n a l a tt e m p t

. R e g ar d l e ss , we c on c l ud e t h e i nd i c tm e n t g a v e s u ff

i c i e n t no ti ce o f t h e p r op er t y

a t iss u e a nd t h e o w n er

o f t h a t p r op er t y f

o r a pp e ll a n t t o p re p are h is d efe n s e

. S ee M o ff , 154

S

. W .3d a t 601.

T h e p r op er t y a t iss u e wa s t h e p r op er t y i n B e nd ts e n ’ s e st a t e , t h a t is
, w h a t e v er s h e o w n e d

w h e n s h e d i e d. T h e St a t e a ll e g e d t h a t a pp e ll a n t i n t e nd e d t o st ea l w h a t e v er p r op er t y m a d e up t h a t

e st a t e (w it h t h e e x ce p ti on o f j ewe l r y a nd a r o c k i ng c h a i r)

. B u t p rec is e l y w h a t

p r op er t y w ou l d b e–7–

i n t h e e st a t e w h e n B e nd ts e n d i e d c ou l d no t b e kno w n a t t h e tim e a

pp e ll a n t ca u s e d h er t o si gn t h e

w ill

. P r op er t y c ou l d b e l o st o r s o l d o r st o l e n du r i ng t h e tim e b e t wee n si gn i ng t h e w ill a nd

B e nd ts e n ’ s p a ssi ng. B y referr i ng t o “ h er p r op er t y a t

h er d ea t h, ” t h e i nd i c tm e n t c l ear l y i d e n ti f i e d

t h e p r op er t y i n B e nd ts e n ’ s e st a t e , w h i c h wa s t h e p r op er t y t h e B a y l o r w ill ear m ar k e d f o r

a pp e ll a n t

. S ee Sh ri n e r ’ s H o s p. f o r Cri pp l e d C h il d r

e n o f T ex

. v . S t ah l , 610 S

. W .2d 147, 150

(Te x. 1980 ) (“A w ill s p ea k s a t t h e tim e o f t h e t e st a t o r’ s d ea t h, a nd it is t h e e st a t e h e t h e n

po ss e ss e d t h a t

p a ss e s acc o r d i ng t o t h e t er ms o f t h a t w ill

. ”)

. A pp e ll a n t ar gu e s t h a t a t t h e tim e o f

t r i a l , y ear s af

t er B e nd ts e n d i e d, t h e St a t e c ou l d h a v e i d e n ti f i e d t h e p r op er t y t h a t wa s i n fac t i n h er

e st a t e

. H o we v er , t h a t i d e n ti f i ca ti on w ou l d no t

h a v e s pok e n t o a pp e ll a n t ’ s i n t e n t a t t h e tim e h e

ca u s e d B e nd ts e n t o e x ec u t e t h e w ill a nd o ffere d it f o r p r ob a t e

. T h e i nd i c tm e n t s u ff i c i e n tl y

i d e n ti f i e d t h e p r op er t y t h a t a pp e ll a n t a tt e m p t e d t o st ea l

.

T h e iss u e o f timi ng is a ls o re l e v a n t t o n a mi ng t h e o w n er o f t h e p r op er t y i n t h is ca s e

. A t

t h e tim e a pp e ll a n t ca u s e d B e nd ts e n t o e x ec u t e t h e B a y l o r w ill
, s h e wa s t h e o w n er o f t h e p r op er t y

a t iss u e

. T o t

h e e x t e n t effec ti v e c on s e n t wa s n ece ss ar y t o p a ss t h e p r op er t y t o a pp e ll a n t , it wa s

B e nd ts e n ’ s c on s e n t t h a t wa s re l e v a n t

. H o we v er , b eca u s e t h e p r op er t y w ou l d no t p a ss un til

B e nd ts e n ’ s d ea t

h, t h e o w n er( s )

— w ho w ou l d b e d e p r i v e d o f po ss e ssi on o f t h e p r op er t y by

a pp e ll a n t

— were t ho s e w ho w ou l d t a k e B e nd ts e n ’ s e st a t e i n t h e a b s e n ce o f t h e B a y l o r w ill

.

A g a i n, t h e i d e n tit y o f t h a t p er s on o r

p er s on s c ou l d h a v e c h a ng e d b e t wee n e x ec u ti on o f t h e w ill

a nd B e nd ts e n ’ s d ea t h b a s e d on a nu m b er o f c i rc u mst a n ce s: G i r on mi gh t h a v e p re d ecea s e d

B e nd ts e n, t h e Fl o r i d a w ill mi gh t h a v e b ee n d ec l are d i nv a li d, G i r on ’ s t w o c h il d re n c ou l d h a v e

s u ccee d e d t o t

h e p r op er t y. T h e p e n a l c od e d ef i n e s “ o w n er” a s a

p er s on w ho h a s titl e t o o r

po ss e ssi on o f t

h e p r op er t y o r w ho h a s “a g rea t er r i gh t t o po ss e ssi on o f t h e p r op er t y t h a n t h e

ac t o r

. ” T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 1.07 (a)( 35 )(A) (We st S upp. 2014 )

. W h e n a pp e ll a n t f o r m e d

t h e s p ec i f i c i n t e n t t o st ea l B e nd ts e n ’ s e st a t e , h e c ou l d no t h a v e kno w n w ho w ou l d t a k e t h a t e st a t e–8–

bu t f o r h is c ondu c t

. T hu s , t h e St a t e p r op er l y a dop t e d t h is st a t u t o r y d ef i n iti on o f o w n er a nd st a t e d

a pp e ll a n t ’ s a tt e m

p t wa s t o d e p r i v e “a ny o t h er p er s on h a v i ng a g rea t er r i gh t t o po ss e ssi on o f t h e

p r op er t y t h a n Defe nd a n t upon t h e d ea t h o f M ar y E ll e n B e nd ts e n. ” A g a i n, t h e i nd i c tm e n t

s u ff i c i e n tl y i d e n ti f

i e d t h e p er s on s w ho s e o w n er s h i p wa s a t iss u e i n t h is p r o s ec u ti on.

B ef o re we l ea v e t h e s ub

j ec t o f t h e i nd i c tm e n t , we a dd re ss a pp e ll a n t ’ s ar gu m e n t t h a t t h e

St a t e’ s p r o s ec u ti on i n t h is ca s e is a n i n a pp r op r i a t e u s e o f t h e t h ef t st a t u t e a nd a n a tt e m p t t o

cr imi n a li ze a w ill c on t e st

. T h e t h ef t st a t u t e h a s a b r o a d reac h : “A p er s on c o mmits t h ef t i f h e

un l awf u ll y a pp r op r i a t e s p r op er t y w it h i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e t h e o w n er o f p r op er t y. ” I

d . § 31.03 (a)

.

I nd ee d, c h a p t er

31 o f t h e p e n a l c od e , w h i c h a dd re ss e s t h ef t , e xp l a i n s t h is st a t u t e wa s i n t e nd e d t o

crea t e a “ si ng l e o ffe n s e” t h a t w ou l d s up er s e d e a do ze n s e p ara t e o ffe n s e s t h a t p re d a t e d t h e f

o r m

o f t h e c od e effec ti v e i n 1974. S ee i d. § 31.02 (We st 2011 ) ( s ec ti on 31.03 s up er s e d e s t h ef t , t h ef t
by fa ls e p re t e x t , c onv er si on by a b a il ee , t h ef t fr o m t h e p er s on, s hop li f ti ng, ac qu isiti on o f

p r op er t y
by t h rea t , s w i nd li ng, s w i nd li ng by w o r t h l e ss c h ec k, e m b ezz l e m e n t , e x t o r ti on, rece i v i ng o r

c on cea li ng e m b ezz l e d p r op er t y, a nd rece i v i ng o r c on cea li ng st o l e n p r op er t y )

. T h e st a t u t e c l ear l y

a pp li e s t o a t h ef

t w h e n t h e a pp r op r i a ti on is acc o m p lis h e d u si ng a l e g a l do c u m e n t

. S ee , e .g. , L e h r

v . S t a t e , N o. 05

- 09

- 00381

- CR , 2011 WL 1566970, a t *8 (Te x. A pp.— Da ll a s A p r . 27, 2011, p e t

.

ref’ d ) ( no t

d e si gn a t e d f

o r pub li ca ti on ) ( t h ef

t by d ee d ) ; s ee a ls o C oop e r v . S t a t e , 707 S

. W .2d 686,

691–92 (Te x. A pp.— H ou st on [ 1 st D ist

. ] 1986, p e t

. ref’ d ) ( t h ef t by p r o miss o r y no t e)

. We s ee no

rea s on w hy s u c h a n un l awf u l t ra n s fer ca nno t

b e m a d e by w ill

. T h e fac t t h a t t h e t w o ac ts

n ece ss ar y f

o r a t h ef t by w ill

— ca u si ng t h e w ill t o b e m a d e a nd f ili ng t h e w ill f o r p r ob a t e

— are

s e p ara t e d by tim e do e s no t n e g a t e t h e fac t t h a t s u c h a p r o s ec u ti on s er v e s t h e i d e n ti ca l po li c i e s a s

a t h ef t by d ee d.

A pp e ll a n t e xp a nd s on h is c on t e n ti on t h a t t h e St a t e is a tt e m p ti ng t o cr imi n a li ze w ill

c on t e sts by ar gu i ng t h a t t h e p r ob a t e c ou r t is t h e p r op er are n a f o r t h is t yp e o f c on t e st

. A w ill–9–

c on t e st d e t er mi n e s t h e v a li d it y o f a w ill

. S ee T EX

. E S T

. C ODE A NN . § 256.04 (a) (We st 2014 )

. A

p r o s ec u ti on f

o r t h ef t d e t er mi n e s w h e t h er a p er s on h a s t h e s p ec i f i c cr imi n a l i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e t h e

o w n er o f h er p r op er t y. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 31.03 (a)

. T h e on l y w ill c on t e sts t h a t ca n b e

“cr imi n a li ze d ” are t ho s e i n w h i c h a w ill p r opon e n t kno w i ng l y s ub mits a w ill f o r p r ob a t e w it h t h e

s p ec i f i c i n t e n ti on o f st ea li ng a n e st a t e fr o m o t h er s w it h t h e l e g a l r i gh t t o i nh er it

. S ee i d. A good

fa it h c on t e st

b e t wee n t w o w ills do e s no t a m oun t t o a t h ef t a nd w ou l d no t

b e p r o s ec u t e d a s on e

.

B u t t h e l e g isl a t

u re h a s e xp re ss e d its i n t e n t i n c l ear t er ms: w h e n a n ac t o r a pp r op r i a t e s p r op er t y

kno w i ng its o w n er ca nno t g i v e effec ti v e c on s e n t t o t h e t ra n s fer
, t h e a pp r op r i a ti on—o r a tt e m p t e d

a pp r op r i a ti on— is a cr imi n a l o ffe n s e , no t a p r ob a t e m a tt er

. S ee i d. § 31.03 ( b )( 1 )

.

We c on c l ud e t h e i nd i c tm e n t no t on l y st a t e d a cr imi n a l o ffe n s e , it s u ff i c i e n tl y i d e n ti f

i e d

bo t h t h e p r op er t y a t iss u e a nd t h e o w n er s o f t h a t p r op er t y s o a s t o g i v e a pp e ll a n t t h e no ti ce h e

n ee d e d t o p re p are h is d efe n s e

. S ee M o ff , 154 S

. W .3d a t

601. We ov err u l e a pp e ll a n t ’ s f i r st t w o

iss u e s

.
Su ff i c i e n c y o f t h e E v id e n ce
I n h is t h i r d iss u e , a pp e ll a n t c h a ll e ng e s t h e s u ff i c i e n c y o f t

h e e v i d e n ce a t t r i a l t o s uppo r t

h is c onv i c ti on f

o r a tt e m p t e d t h ef

t

. A pp e ll a n t ar gu e s t h a t t h e B a y l o r w ill re p re s e n t e d B e nd ts e n ’ s

t r u e i n t e n t a nd t h a t s h e po ss e ss e d t e st a m e n t ar y ca p ac it y w h e n s h e e x ec u t e d t h a t w ill

. A t t h e

s a m e tim e , a pp e ll a n t c on t e nd s h e h a d no cr imi n a l i n t e n t i n h is c ondu c t s u rr ound i ng t h e B a y l o r

w ill a nd t h ere wa s no e v i d e n ce o f d ece p ti on, c o erc i on, f

o rce , o r t h rea t i n h is d ea li ng s w it h

B e nd ts e n. S p ec i f

i ca ll y, t h e n, a pp e ll a n t c h a ll e ng e s t w o e l e m e n ts o f t h e St a t e’ s p r oo f

. He

c on t e nd s t

h e e v i d e n ce wa s i n s u ff

i c i e n t t o e st a b lis h h e i n t e nd e d t o st ea l B e nd ts e n ’ s e st a t e

. He

a ls o c on t e nd s t

h e e v i d e n ce wa s i n s u ff

i c i e n t t o e st a b lis h h e a tt e m p t e d t o a pp r op r i a t e B e nd ts e n ’ s

p r op er t y un l awf

u ll y, b eca u s e s h e c on s e n t e d t o h is t a k i ng t h e e st a t e w h e n s h e d i e d.

We re v i ew a s u ff

i c i e n c y c h a ll e ng e by e x a mi n i ng t h e e v i d e n ce i n t h e li gh t m o st fa vo ra b l e

t o t h e p r o s ec u ti on t o d e t er mi n e w h e t h er a ny ra ti on a l t r i er o f fac t c ou l d h a v e f

ound t h e e ss e n ti a l–10–

e l e m e n ts o f t

h e o ffe n s e b e yond a rea s on a b l e doub t

. J a ck s on v

. V ir g i n i a , 443 U

. S . 307, 319

( 1979 )

. T h e j u r y is t h e e x c l u si v e j udg e o f t h e cre d i b ilit y o f t h e w it n e ss e s a nd t h e we i gh t t o b e

g i v e n t h e i r t e stim ony. W is e v . S t a t e , 364 S

. W .3d 900, 903 (Te x. C r im

. A pp. 2012 )

. O u r du t y is

t o e n s u re t h a t t h e e v i d e n ce p re s e n t e d s uppo r ts t h e j u r y ’ s v er d i c t a nd t h a t t h e St a t e h a s p re s e n t e d a

l e g a ll y s u ff

i c i e n t ca s e o f t h e o ffe n s e c h ar g e d. M on t go me r y v . S t a t e , 369 S

. W .3d 188, 192 (Te x.

C r im

. A pp. 2012 )

.

A pp e ll an t ’ s Cri m i na l I

n t e n t

T o p r ov e a n a tt e m

p t e d t h ef t , t h e St a t e m u st s ho w t h e acc u s e d po ss e ss e d a n i n t e n t t o st ea l;

t h is i n t e n t m a y b e i n ferre d fr o m c i rc u mst a n ti a l e v i d e n ce

. W o lf e v . S t a t e , 917 S

. W .2d 270, 275

(Te x. C r im

. A pp. 1996 )

. I n a pp e ll a n t ’ s ca s e , we c on si d er h is c ondu c t t

h r oughou t

h is re l a ti on s h i p

w it h B e nd ts e n, e s p ec i a ll y du r i ng h er 2005 ho s p it a li za ti on s , a nd we l ook t o e v i d e n ce o f

a pp e ll a n t ’ s c ondu c t w it h o t h er p er s on s t h a t wa s o ffere d a nd a d mitt e d f o r t h e pu r po s e o f

d e t er mi n i ng h is i n t e n t i n t h is ca s e

.

T h e e v i d e n ce a t t r i a l e st a b lis h e d a pp e ll a n t wa s d e t er mi n e d t o po ss e ss B e nd ts e n ’ s S w iss

A v e nu e ho m e

. B e nd ts e n o w n e d f i v e- t we l f t h s o f t h e S w iss A v e nu e p r op er t y ; t h e re m a i nd er wa s

o w n e d by h er si b li ng s o r t h e i r h e i r s

. S e v era l w it n e ss e s g a v e s p ec i f i c e v i d e n ce o f a pp e ll a n t ’ s

eff o r ts t o ob t a i n t h e hou s e fr o m B e nd ts e n. We v i ew t h e i r t e stim ony i n t h e li gh t m o st fa vo ra b l e

t o t h e p r o s ec u ti on. S ee J a ck s on , 443 U

. S

. a t

319.

J effre y M ar ti n, a l a nd s ca p e a nd i n t er i o r d e si gn er a nd fr i e nd o f B e nd ts e n, t e sti f i e d t h a t i n

2003 a pp e ll a n t ca ll e d h im t w i ce a nd t o l d h im h e wa s t r y i ng t o g e t B e nd ts e n t o si gn a po wer o f

a tt o r n e y a nd t o l ea v e h er s h are o f t h e hou s e t o h im a nd B u r g e ss i n e x c h a ng e f o r e v er y t h i ng t h e y

h a d don e f

o r h er

. B u t B e nd ts e n wa s no t c oop era ti ng. A pp e ll a n t t o l d M ar ti n h e h a d i nv e st e d a l o t

o f tim e a nd e n er gy i n t o B e nd ts e n, a nd h e h a d k e p t rece i p ts o f a ll t h e f ood a nd a l c oho l h e h a d

b r ough t t o h er a nd m on e y s p e n t t a k i ng h er ou t

. A pp e ll a n t re p ea t e d “ ov er a nd ov er” t h a t h e–11–

wa n t e d t h a t

hou s e a nd wa s e n titl e d t o it

. I nd ee d, h e t o l d M ar ti n h e h a d a p l a n t o g e t f u ll

o w n er s h i p o f t

h e hou s e w h e n h e i nh er it e d B e nd ts e n ’ s s h are : h e w ou l d ref u s e t o j o i n t h e o t h er

o w n er s i n s e lli ng t h e hou s e , d r i v i ng t h e p r i ce do w n un til h e c ou l d aff o r d t o buy t h e i r s h are s

. He

a ls o t o l d M ar ti n t h a t i f B e nd ts e n w ou l d no t si gn t h e p a p er s , h e a nd B u r g e ss w ou l d st op s ee i ng

h er

— it w ou l d b e t h e e nd o f t h e i r re l a ti on s h i p.

J ac k i e St a l e y t e sti f

i e d simil ar l y a t t r i a l

. St a l e y wa s a re ti re d ho m e re st o rer a s we ll a s a

l ong

- tim e fr i e nd o f B e nd ts e n. S h e s a i d a pp e ll a n t ca ll e d h er a nd t o l d h er h e wa s t r y i ng t o g e t

B e nd ts e n t o si gn l e g a l p a p er s t h a t w ou l d g i v e B e nd ts e n a li fe e st a t e i n t h e hou s e a nd w ou l d a ll o w

a pp e ll a n t a nd B u r g e ss t o m ov e i n t o t a k e care o f h er

. A pp e ll a n t t o l d St a l e y h e h a d t a k e n

B e nd ts e n t o a n a tt o r n e y, bu t s h e ref u s e d t o si gn t h e p a p erw o r k. A pp e ll a n t wa s “ qu it e up s e t

. ”

A pp e ll a n t t o l d h er t h a t h is fr i e nd G i b s on wa s ho sti ng a p ar t y w h ere B e nd ts e n ’ s b e st fr i e nd s

w ou l d t a l k t o h er a nd e n c ou ra g e h er t o si gn t h e p a p erw o r k. ( St a l e y c ho s e no t t o a tt e nd s u c h a

p ar t y, a nd w h e n s h e s pok e t o B e nd ts e n af t erwar d s , B e nd ts e n wa s “ v er y a ng r y. ”) A pp e ll a n t t o l d

St a l e y t h a t h e a nd B u r g e ss were go i ng t o “ b ac k o ff” t h e i r tim e w it h B e nd ts e n s o s h e w ou l d

und er st a nd ho w m u c h t h e y h a d h e l p e d h er

. A pp e ll a n t a ls o s h are d w it h St a l e y a p l a n t o g e t t h e

e n ti re hou s e : h e t o l d h er h e w ou l d p re s e n t t h e o t h er o w n er s w it h b ills f o r t a x e s a nd i n s u ra n ce

B e nd ts e n h a d p a i d w h il e s h e li v e d t h ere

. T h e rec o r d i nd i ca t e s B e nd ts e n ’ s si b li ng s h a d a g ree d

t h a t s h e c ou l d re m a i n i n t h e hou s e af t er t h e i r p are n ts ’ d ea t h i f s h e p a i d t h e t a x e s a nd i n s u ra n ce on

t h e hou s e

.

U nd er st a nd i ng t h a t a pp e ll a n t ’ s s e l f-e xp re ss e d go a l wa s t o ob t a i n t h e S w iss A v e nu e

p r op er t y, a nd t h a t

h e h a d b ee n un s u cce ss f

u l i n ob t a i n i ng B e nd ts e n ’ s c oop era ti on i n m a k i ng s u c h

a t ra n s fer
, t

h e m on t h s l ea d i ng up t o B e nd ts e n ’ s d ea t h are re v ea li ng. A g a i n, we l ook a t t h e

e v i d e n ce i n t h e li gh t m o st fa vo ra b l e t o t h e p r o s ec u ti on. S ee J a ck s on , 443 U

. S

. a t 319.–12–

A yod e ji F a t und e wa s a n i nv e sti g a t o r f o r A du lt P r o t ec ti v e S er v i ce s (A PS )

. Af t er

B e nd ts e n ’ s fa ll
, a pp e ll a n t e n c ou ra g e d a B a y l o r s o c i a l w o r k er t o m a k e a referra l t o A PS a ll e g i ng

e xp l o it a ti on o f B e nd ts e n by h er d a ugh t er

. F a t und e i n t er v i ewe d B e nd ts e n, G i r on, a pp e ll a n t , a nd

nu m er ou s p e op l e on st aff o f bo t h B a y l o r a nd A s h l e y C ou r t

. H is c on c l u si on wa s t h a t G i r on wa s

no t e xp l o iti ng B e nd ts e n, bu t t h a t a pp e ll a n t wa n t e d t o is o l a t e B e nd ts e n a nd d is cre d it G i r on s o t h a t

h e c ou l d e xp l o it B e nd ts e n.

M ar y a nn J on e s , a c on c i er g e a t B a y l o r , wa s a s k e d t o go t o B e nd ts e n ’ s r oo m du r i ng t h e

f i r st ho s p it a li za ti on t o no t ar i ze a do c u m e n t

. J on e s t e sti f i e d t h e do c u m e n t wa s a l e g a l do c u m e n t;

s h e t hough t it wa s a

po wer o f a tt o r n e y. S h e t e sti f

i e d t h a t t h ere were t h ree m e n i n t h e r oo m
(e v i d e n ce i nd i ca t e s it wa s a pp e ll a n t , B u r g e ss , a nd a tt o r n e y O ls e n ) w ho were t r y i ng t o t e ll

B e nd ts e n ho w t o a n s wer J on e s ’ s qu e sti on s

. J on e s d i d no t “fee l c o m f o r t a b l e” a bou t p r o cee d i ng

w it h t h e no t ar i za ti on. Simil ar l y, C yn t h i a Ke nn e dy wa s B e nd ts e n ’ s phy si ca l t h era py a ssist a n t

du r i ng h er f

i r st ho s p it a li za ti on. Ke nn e dy d e s cr i b e d a pp e ll a n t a s “ m e dd li ng ” i n h er m e n t a l st a t u s

a ss e ssm e n t

o f B e nd ts e n, t r y i ng t o st eer Ke nn e dy t o t op i c s t h a t mi gh t m a k e B e nd ts e n s ee m “ m o re

c ogn iti v e” t h a n s h e wa s

.

O n J a nu ar y 18, 2005, a pp e ll a n t h a d B e nd ts e n e x ec u t e t h e po wer o f a tt o r n e y i n h is fa vo r

. (T h e do c u m e n t

h a d o r i g i n a ll y b ee n d a t e d N ov e m b er 2003, w h e n a pp e ll a n t i n iti a ll y t r i e d t o

p er s u a d e B e nd ts e n t o si gn a po wer o f a tt o r n e y, bu t s h e h a d ref u s e d. ) T h e n on J a nu ar y 22,

a pp e ll a n t h a d B e nd ts e n e x ec u t e a do c u m e n t ( 1 ) re vok i ng a ny o t h er po wer s o f a tt o r n e y,

d ec l ara ti on s o f

gu ar d i a n s h i p, o r

o t h er a u t ho r i za ti on s e m

po wer i ng o t h er s t o ac t

on h er b e h a l f
, a nd

( 2 ) n a mi ng a pp e ll a n t a s h er a g e n t/ a tt o r n e y i n fac t t o e x erc is e bo t h a du ra b l e po wer

o f a tt o r n e y

a nd a m e d i ca l po wer

o f a tt o r n e y, a nd n a mi ng O ls e n a s h er a tt o r n e y i n l aw

. T h e J a nu ar y 22

do c u m e n t wa s no t ar i ze d by G i b s on, t h e s a m e p er s on w ho ho st e d t h e p ar t y a t w h i c h fr i e nd s o f–13–

B e nd ts e n were t o e n c ou ra g e h er t o si gn ov er h er p r op er t y t o a

pp e ll a n t a nd w ho fa ls e l y no t ar i ze d

t h e B a y l o r w ill

.

T h e do c t o r s w ho t rea t e d B e nd ts e n a t B a y l o r af t er t h e st r ok e t e sti f

i e d t o a pp e ll a n t ’ s

c ondu c t t

h a t effec ti v e l y is o l a t e d B e nd ts e n fr o m h er fa mil y. Da v i d C ob a s ko, B e nd ts e n ’ s

n e u r o l og ist , d is c u ss e d h er w o r s e n i ng c ond iti on w it h a pp e ll a n t

. A pp e ll a n t t o l d C ob a s ko h e wa s

no t t o d is c u ss t h e ca s e w it h B e nd ts e n ’ s sist er o r d a ugh t er ; h e wa s t o d is c u ss h er st a t u s on l y w it h

a pp e ll a n t

. S u s a n E ll e n K oh l
, B e nd ts e n ’ s a tt e nd i ng phy si c i a n a t B a y l o r af t er t h e st r ok e , t e sti f

i e d

a pp e ll a n t a nd B u r g e ss were w it h B e nd ts e n i n t h e e m er g e n c y r oo m

. T h e y t o l d K oh l t h a t

B e nd ts e n wa s e st ra ng e d fr o m h er d a ugh t er a nd w ou l d no t wa n t h er d a ugh t er no ti f i e d o f h er

c ond iti on. T h e y h a d B e nd ts e n i d e n ti f i e d a s “ P a ti e n t X” t o k ee p fa mil y m e m b er s fr o m l ear n i ng

t h a t s h e wa s i n t

h e ho s p it a l

.

T h e c i rc u mst a n ce s s u rr ound i ng t h e B a y l o r w ill f u r t h er m a n i fe st a pp e ll a n t ’ s i n t e n t

. H is

eff o r ts t o h a v e B e nd ts e n vo l un t ar il y si gn ov er h er ho m e h a d fa il e d. He wa s i n f o r m e d t h a t

B e nd ts e n ’ s st a t

u s wa s g ra v e af

t er t h e st r ok e

. He h a d is o l a t e d h er fr o m h er fa mil y. A nd s o h e

h a d O ls e n d raf

t t h e w ill l ea v i ng t h e e st a t e t o h im a nd B u r g e ss a nd b r i ng it t o B a y l o r

. B e nd ts e n ’ s
phy si ca l a nd m e n t a l st a t u s , a nd h er a b ilit y t o c on s e n t t o t h e p r ov isi on s o f t h a t w ill
, are d is c u ss e d

i n m o re d e t a il b e l o w

. U nd er t h e fac ts o f t h is ca s e , a pp e ll a n t ’ s o rc h e st ra ti on o f t h is d ea t hb e d

t ra n s fer is its e l f e v i d e n ce t h a t h e i n t e nd e d t o t a k e t h e p r op er t y re g ar d l e ss o f B e nd ts e n ’ s w is h e s
by crea ti ng a t ra n s fer

o f t h e p r op er t y by w ill

. W h e n h e s ub mitt e d t h e B a y l o r w ill f o r p r ob a t e

af t er B e nd ts e n d i e d, a pp e ll a n t f i n a li ze d h is a tt e m

p t t o g a i n po ss e ssi on o f

h er e st a t e

.

Fi n a ll y, w it n e ss e s t e sti f

i e d t o a re l a ti on s h i p a pp e ll a n t d e v e l op e d w it

h a n e l d er l y c oup l e ,

J ac k a nd Ire n e F arr i ng t on. A pp e ll a n t go t t o kno w t h e F arr i ng t on s af t er J ac k ’ s b r o t h er

d i e d. A t

s o m e po i n t , h e a ss u m e d re s pon si b ilit y f o r car i ng f

o r t h e si c k l y c oup l e , a nd h e s o m e tim e s li v e d i n

t h e i r hou s e

. A t

on e po i n t , h e h i re d M ar g are t Ar mst r ong a s a care t a k er

. S h e t e sti f

i e d t h a t w h e n–14–

s h e arr i v e d, t h e hou s e wa s f ilt hy, t h e c oup l e h a d no t

b ee n b a t h e d i n y ear s , a nd t h e y were wear i ng

t h rea db are c l o t

h i ng h e l d t og e t h er w it h s afe t y p i n s

. A pp e ll a n t t o l d Ar mst r ong t h e F arr i ng t on s h a d

no li v i ng re l a ti v e s

. D u r i ng t h e m on t h s s h e w o r k e d t h ere , a pp e ll a n t b r ough t a n a tt o r n e y t o t h e

hou s e t o g e t J ac k t o si gn l e g a l p a p er s , bu t h e ref u s e d. T h e m e n ar gu e d a nu m b er o f tim e s , a nd

Ar mst r ong a dv is e d J ac k no t t o si gn t h e p a p er s

. U ltim a t e l y, a pp e ll a n t t ook J ac k t o a tt o r n e y P a u l

L ok e y, a nd J ac k si gn e d do c u m e n ts crea ti ng a t r u st

. L ok e y t e sti f i e d J ac k p l ace d h is h a l f

o f t h e

ho m e a nd t w o b a nk acc oun ts i n t h e t r u st , w h i c h w ou l d b e u s e d t o care f o r t h e c oup l e du r i ng t h e i r

li fe a nd t h e n w ou l d b e s p lit b e t wee n a pp e ll a n t a nd a n o l d fr i e nd o f J ac k ’ s

.

A pp e ll a n t ’ s re l a ti on s h i p w it h t h e F arr i ng t on s wa s c h a ll e ng e d on l y w h e n Ire n e’ s sist er a nd

n i ece v isit e d a nd f

ound t h e c oup l e i n fra il c ond iti on. A pp e ll a n t i n iti a ll y p er s u a d e d t h e v isit o r s h e

wa s t a k i ng care o f t h e m

. B u t w h e n t h e n i ece , Le on a Owe n, re t u r n e d af t er a few m on t h s , s h e

d is c ov ere d J ac k h a d d i e d ; a pp e ll a n t h a d no t no ti f i e d J ac k ’ s fa mil y. Owe n t ook care o f h er a un t

f o r a y ear i n t h e F arr i ng t on s ’ hou s e a nd t h e n m ov e d Ire n e t o Wac o. S h e t e sti f i e d t h a t w h e n s h e

wa s a bou t t o l ea v e t h e hou s e w it h Ire n e , a pp e ll a n t d r ov e up “ s crea mi ng a nd ho ll er i ng, wa n ti ng –

I c ou l dn ’ t m ov e h er , I c ou l dn ’ t m ov e t h e f u r n it u re , t h e hou s e wa s h is

. ” Owe n g a v e a pp e ll a n t t h e

F arr i ng t on s ’ f

u r n it u re o t h er t h a n Ire n e’ s ho s p it a l b e d. L ok e y t e sti f i e d a pp e ll a n t wa n t e d t h e

c oup l e’ s hou s e a nd wa s no t h a ppy w h e n it wa s s o l d. W h e n Ire n e d i e d t w o y ear s l a t er , a pp e ll a n t

rece i v e d a bou t

$100,000 fr o m t h e t r u st

.

T h e j u r y wa s i n st r u c t e d t h e y c ou l d c on si d er t h is e v i d e n ce on l y i f t h e y f ound a nd b e li e v e d

b e yond a rea s on a

b l e doub t t h a t a pp e ll a n t

h a d i n fac t c o mmitt e d t h e s e ac ts

. M o re ov er , t h e y were

i n st r u c t e d t h a t t

h e e v i d e n ce c ou l d on l y b e c on si d ere d i n d e t er mi n i ng a pp e ll a n t ’ s i n t e n t ,

kno w l e dg e , o r

p l a n i n c onn ec ti on w it h t h e ca s e b ef o re t h e m

. We c on c l ud e t h e j u r y c ou l d h a v e

f ound t h e e v i d e n ce t r u e b e yond a rea s on a b l e doub t a nd c ou l d h a v e c on c l ud e d it wa s f u r t h er

e v i d e n ce o f a pp e ll a n t ’ s i n t e n t i n t h e B e nd ts e n ca s e

. J u r o r s c ou l d h a v e b e li e v e d t h a t i n bo t h ca s e s–15–

a pp e ll a n t i n si nu a t e d h ims e l f i n t o e l d er l y p er s on s ’ li v e s a nd p re ss u re d t ho s e i nd i v i du a ls t o si gn

ov er p r op er t y t o h im

.

We c on c l ud e t h ere wa s a m p l e e v i d e n ce t h a t a pp e ll a n t i n t e nd e d t o t a k e B e nd ts e n ’ s e st a t e

a nd t hu s t o d e p r i v e a nyon e w ho w ou l d o t h erw is e i nh er it t h a t e st a t e fr o m t h e i r r i gh t f u l

i nh er it a n ce

. R a ti on a l j u r o r s c ou l d h a v e c on c l ud e d b e yond a rea s on a b l e doub t t h a t a pp e ll a n t

po ss e ss e d t h e cr imi n a l i n t e n t n ece ss ar y t o c o mmit a n a tt e m p t e d t h ef t

. S ee J a ck s on , 443 U

. S

. a t

319.

Be nd ts e n ’ s I n e ff ec ti ve C on s e n t

A pp e ll a n t a ls o c h a ll e ng e s t h e s u ff i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n ce e st a b lis h i ng h e a tt e m p t e d t o

a pp r op r i a t e B e nd ts e n ’ s p r op er t y un l awf u ll y. He ar gu e s s h e vo l un t ar il y t ra n s ferre d t h e p r op er t y

t o h im i n t

h e B a y l o r w ill

. U n l awf

u l a pp r op r i a ti on ca n b e p r ov e d i n a nu m b er o f wa y s , bu t

on e is

by e st a b lis h i ng t h e o w n er o f t h e p r op er t y d i d no t effec ti v e l y c on s e n t t o g i v i ng t h e p r op er t y. S ee

T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 31.03 ( b )( 1 )

. A nd, a s we h a v e d is c u ss e d, c on s e n t is no t effec ti v e i f it is

g i v e n by s o m e on e w ho by rea s on o f m e n t a l d efec t is kno w n by t h e ac t o r t o b e un a b l e t o m a k e

rea s on a b l e p r op er t y d is po siti on s , i d. § 31.01 ( 3 )( C ) , o r i f g i v e n by s o m e on e w ho by rea s on o f

a dv a n ce d a g e is kno w n by t h e ac t o r t o h a v e a d imi n is h e d ca p ac it y t o m a k e i n f o r m e d a nd ra ti on a l

d ec isi on s a

bou t t h e rea s on a b l e d is po siti on o f p r op er t y, i d. § 31.01 ( 3 )(E)

. Acc o r d i ng l y, t h e

e v i d e n ce o f

un l awf u l a pp r op r i a ti on is s u ff

i c i e n t i f a rea s on a b l e j u r o r c ou l d h a v e c on c l ud e d t h a t

a pp e ll a n t kn ew B e nd ts e n wa s un a b l e t o m a k e rea s on a b l e d is po siti on s o f h er p r op er t y, e it h er

b eca u s e h er mi nd wa s no t we ll o r b eca u s e o f a d imi n is h e d ca p ac it y t h a t ca m e a bou t b eca u s e o f

h er a dv a n ce d a g e

. We f o c u s on B e nd ts e n ’ s m e n t a l st a t u s du r i ng t h e tim e l ea d i ng up t o a nd

imm e d i a t e l y af

t er h er st r ok e , i n c l ud i ng t h e d a y B e nd ts e n m a d e a m ar k on t h e w ill

.

T ho s e w ho c l a im e d t o b e B e nd ts e n ’ s fr i e nd s were d i v i d e d i n t h e i r op i n i on s a s t o h er

m e n t a l ca p ac it y i n t h e tim e p er i od l ea d i ng up t o h er st r ok e

. S o m e t e sti f i e d s h e po ss e ss e d a ll o f–16–

t h e m e n t a l a

b ilit y s h e a l wa y s h a d ; o t h er s t e sti f i e d t o a sl o w d ec li n e s h e e xp er i e n ce d ov er tim e ;

still o t h er s t e sti f

i e d t h e y were c on cer n e d a t t h e si gn i f i ca n t d ec li n e s h e e xp er i e n ce d i n t h e ear l y

m on t h s o f

2005. A s t h e e x c l u si v e j udg e o f t h e cre d i b ilit y o f t h e w it n e ss e s a nd t h e we i gh t t o b e

g i v e n t h e i r t e stim ony, t h e j u r y h a d t o re s o l v e t h is c on f li c ti ng t e stim ony. W

is e , 364 S

. W .3d a t

903. T h a t s a i d, e v e n c oun s e l f o r a pp e ll a n t ac kno w l e dg e d i n h is op e n i ng st a t e m e n t t o t h e j u r y

t h a t B e nd ts e n ’ s m e n t a l a b ilit y h a d b ee n affec t e d by t h e st r ok e a nd t h a t “ s h e h a d s o m e p r ob l e ms ”

a s a re s u lt

.

T h e m e d i ca l t e stim ony on t h is s ub j ec t , ho we v er , wa s no t c on f li c ti ng. E v e n b ef

o re h er

st r ok e , Ke nn e dy t e sti f

i e d, B e nd ts e n wa s no t a l er t a nd o r i e n t e d. Ps y c h i a t r ist E d war d T u t h ill
, w ho

p erf o r m e d a p s y c ho l og i ca l a ss e ssm e n t o f B e nd ts e n, c on c l ud e d s h e s u ffere d fr o m a dv a n ce d

d e m e n ti a a nd wa s “ no t c o m p e t e n t t o m a k e i n f

o r m e d c ho i ce s o r

g i v e i n f o r m e d c on s e n t , o r e v e n

f o r m u l a t e c l ear c ho i ce s

. ” T u t h ill f ound s h e w ou l d b e “ vu l n era b l e t o ‘ undu e i n f

l u e n ce’ a nd

w ou l d no t

b e a b l e t o p r o t ec t

h er o w n i n t ere sts fr o m s o m e on e

. ” He c on c l ud e d f u r t h er t h a t t h is

c ond iti on wa s no t ca u s e d by h er fa ll , bu t it w ou l d h a v e d e v e l op e d ov er tim e

. B e nd ts e n ’ s

a tt e nd i ng phy si c i a n a t A s h l e y C ou r t , V l a d imi r Gre b e nn i kov, a g ree d t h a t s h e wa s c on f u s e d a nd

d is o r i e n t e d, w it

h d ecrea s e d s ho r t

- t er m m e m o r y.

Af t er h er st r ok e , B e nd ts e n ’ s do c t o r s d e s cr i b e d h er a s ob t und e d, m ea n i ng s h e wa s

c o m a t o s e o r c l o s e t o it

. Acc o r d i ng t o T u t h ill
, s h e c ou l d h a v e c on ce i v e d o f t h e i d ea o f a w ill , bu t

s h e c ou l d no t

h a v e pu r s u e d it

. Si gn i f i ca n tl y, t h e St a t e a s k e d eac h t e sti f y i ng h ea lt h care

p r o fe ssi on a l w h e t h er

h e o r s h e w ou l d h a v e b ee n c o m f o r t a b l e s er v i ng a s a w it n e ss t o a l e g a l

t ra n s ac ti on by B e nd ts e n ; eac h w it n e ss re p li e d n e g a ti v e l y a nd t e sti f i e d B e nd ts e n l ac k e d t h e a b ilit y

t o p ar ti c i p a t e i n s u c h a t ra n s ac ti on. Her do c t o r s re po r t e d h er c ond iti on t o a pp e ll a n t , w ho h a d

B e nd ts e n ’ s m e d i ca l po wer o f a tt o r n e y. Af

t er B e nd ts e n s u ffere d h er st r ok e , a pp e ll a n t st ood a t t h e–17–

f oo t o f h er ho s p it a l b e d w h il e O ls e n rea d h er t h e w ill h e h a d d raf t e d a nd h e l p e d h er m a k e a m ar k

on t h e w ill

.

F r o m t h is e v i d e n ce , we c on c l ud e a ra ti on a l j u r y c ou l d h a v e f ound t h a t

— a lt hough

B e nd ts e n “ si gn e d ” t h e B a y l o r w ill

— s h e d i d no t effec ti v e l y c on s e n t t o t ra n s ferr i ng h er e st a t e t o

a pp e ll a n t a nd B u r g e ss

. A ra ti on a l j u r y c ou l d a ls o h a v e c on c l ud e d a pp e ll a n t kn ew t h a t B e nd ts e n

wa s un a b l e t o g i v e effec ti v e c on s e n t af t er h er st r ok e

. Acc o r d i ng l y, we c on c l ud e t h e e v i d e n ce

a pp e ll a n t un l awf u ll y a pp r op r i a t e d t h e e st a t e wa s s u ff i c i e n t

. S ee J

a ck s on , 443 U

. S

. a t 319.

We ov err u l e a pp e ll a n t ’ s t h i r d iss u e

.

A d m issibili t y o f E x tr a n e o us O ffe ns e
I n h is f ou r t h iss u e , a pp e ll a n t ar gu e s t h e t r i a l c ou r t err on e ou sl y a d mitt e d t h e e v i d e n ce o f

a pp e ll a n t ’ s re l a ti on s h i p w it h J ac k a nd Ire n e F arr i ng t on du r i ng t h e gu ilt/i nno ce n ce ph a s e o f h is

t r i a l

. A s we d is c u ss e d a bov e , t h e e v i d e n ce i n c l ud e d a ll e g a ti on s o f mist rea tm e n t o f t h e c oup l e by

a pp e ll a n t a nd o f

h is a tt e m p ts t o ob t a i n po ss e ssi on o f t h e i r ho m e a nd p r op er t y.

A pp e ll a n t ob j ec t e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n ce i nvo l v e d c ondu c t t h a t wa s no t re l e v a n t t o t h e

B e nd ts e n ca s e a nd wa s im p r op er c h arac t er e v i d e n ce

. H is a tt o r n e y ar gu e d t h a t i f t h e e v i d e n ce

were a d mitt e d t h e j u r y c ou l d “c onv i c t h im f o r a c o ll a t era l cr im e , ” w it h w h i c h h e h a d n e v er b ee n

c h ar g e d. A pp e ll a n t a ls o ob j ec t e d t h a t t h e F arr i ng t on e v i d e n ce wa s t oo re m o t e fr o m t h e fac ts o f

t h e B e nd ts e n ca s e t o b e a d missi b l e und er t h e t h ef t st a t u t e’ s p r ov isi on gov er n i ng “rece n t

t ra n s ac ti on s o t

h er t h a n, bu t simil ar t o, t h a t [ upon ] w h i c h t h e p r o s ec u ti on is b a s e d. ” T EX

. P ENAL

C ODE A NN . § 31.03 (c)( 1 )

. We re v i ew a t r i a l c ou r t ’ s d ec isi on t o a d mit e v i d e n ce und er a n a bu s e

o f d is cre ti on st a nd ar d. We a t h e rr e d v . S t a t e , 15 S

. W .3d 540, 542 (Te x. C r im

. A pp. 2000 )

.

We f i r st a dd re ss t h e iss u e o f re m o t e n e ss

. T h e t h ef t st a t u t e a ll o w s t

h e St a t e t o p r ov e a n

acc u s e d ’ s kno w l e dg e o r i n t e n t t h r ough e v i d e n ce h e p ar ti c i p a t e d i n “rece n t t ra n s ac ti on s o t h er

t h a n, bu t simil ar t o ” t h e t ra n s ac ti on b e i ng p r o s ec u t e d. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 31.03 (c)( 1 )

.

A pp e ll a n t ’ s f

i r st ob j ec ti on t o t h e F arr i ng t on e v i d e n ce wa s t h a t it d i d no t i nvo l v e a rece n t–18–

t ra n s ac ti on, a s t

h e st a t u t e re qu i re d. H o we v er , w h e n d a t e s w it h i n t h e s e t w o t ra n s ac ti on s are li n e d

up, t h e ov er l a

p is c l ear

. Tr i a l t e stim ony c on sist e n tl y p l ace d a pp e ll a n t i n B e nd ts e n ’ s s o c i a l c i rc l e

f o r t e n t o f

i f t ee n y ear s

. A t t h e l a t e st , t h e n, h e h a d b efr i e nd e d B e nd ts e n a nd wa s s ee i ng h er

re gu l ar l y by 1995. I n 1997, h e h i re d Ar mst r ong t o care f o r t h e F arr i ng t on s , a nd h e t ook J ac k t o

L ok e y t o d raw up t h e t r u st i n h is fa vo r

. T h e F arr i ng t on s ’ fa mil y v isit e d i n 1999, t h e y ear J ac k

d i e d. Ire n e’ s n i ece st a y e d i n t h e hou s e car i ng f o r h er f o r t h e f o ll o w i ng y ear a nd t h e n m ov e d h er

t o Wac o i n 2000. A pp e ll a n t f i n a ll y rece i v e d h is s h are o f t h e t r u st w h e n Ire n e d i e d i n 2003. T h a t

wa s t h e s a m e y ear B e nd ts e n v isit e d h er d a ugh t er i n Fl o r i d a a nd e x ec u t e d t h e Fl o r i d a w ill
, a nd it

wa s t h e s a m e y ear a pp e ll a n t b e g a n ca lli ng M ar ti n a nd St a l e y, c on f i d i ng t o t h e m t h a t

h e wa n t e d—

a nd d e s er v e d— B e nd ts e n ’ s hou s e

. We c on c l ud e t h a t a pp e ll a n t ’ s i nvo l v e m e n t w it h t h e

F arr i ng t on s n ece ss ar il y ov er l a pp e d i n tim e w it h h is i nvo l v e m e n t w it h B e nd ts e n. T h e e v i d e n ce

o ffere d by t

h e St a t e wa s no t re m o t e fr o m t h e B e nd ts e n e v i d e n ce p re s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y. We

c on c l ud e t

h e e v i d e n ce wa s a d missi b l e und er s ec ti on 31.03 (c)

.

A pp e ll a n t a ls o ar gu e s t h e F arr i ng t on e v i d e n ce wa s no t a d missi b l e und er r u l e 403, g i v e n

its b ar t o e v i d e n ce t h a t is m o re un fa i r l y p re j ud i c i a l t h a n p r ob a ti v e

. S ee T EX

. R

. E V ID . 403. T h e

St a t e ar gu e s i n iti a ll y t h a t a pp e ll a n t d i d no t p re s er v e a r u l e 403 ob

j ec ti on b e l o w

. O u r re v i ew o f

t h e rec o r d c on f

i r ms t h a t t h e iss u e o f

un fa i r p re

j ud i ce wa s ar gu e d by t h e p ar ti e s a nd t h a t t h e t r i a l

c ou r t s p ec i f

i ca ll y c ondu c t e d a r u l e 403 b a l a n c i ng t e st b ef o re a d mitti ng t h e e v i d e n ce

. B eca u s e

t h e t r i a l c ou r t c on si d ere d a nd r u l e d on t h is iss u e , we m a y a s we ll

.

T h e c ou r t

o f cr imi n a l a

pp ea ls h a s i d e n ti f

i e d fac t o r s a t r i a l c ou r t m u st b a l a n ce w h e n

p erf o r mi ng a r u l e 403 a n a l y sis

. G i g li ob i an c o v . S t a t e , 210 S

. W .3d 637, 641–42 (Te x. C r im

.

A pp. 2006 )

. O n t

h e on e h a nd, t h e c ou r t e v a l u a t e s t h e p r ob a ti v e f o rce o f t h e p r o ffere d e v i d e n ce

a nd t h e p r opon e n t ’ s n ee d f o r t h a t e v i d e n ce

. I

d. a t 641. A nd on t h e o t h er h a nd— w h e n t h e–19–

c o m p l a i n t is t

h a t t h e e v i d e n ce is m o re un fa i r l y p re j ud i c i a l t h a n p r ob a ti v e

— t h e c ou r t m u st

e v a l u a t e t h e t e nd e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n ce t o s ugg e st a d ec isi on on a n im p r op er b a sis

. I d.

“[W] h ere i n t e n t o r

gu ilt y kno w l e dg e is a n e ss e n ti a l e l e m e n t o f t h e o ffe n s e w h i c h t h e St a t e

m u st p r ov e t o ob t a i n a c onv i c ti on, its m a t er i a lit y go e s w it hou t s a y i ng. ” M o r gan v . S t a t e , 692

S

. W .2d 877, 880 (Te x. C r im

. A pp. 1985 )

. I n t h is ca s e , e v i d e n ce t h a t a pp e ll a n t i n si nu a t e d

h ims e l f i n t o t

h e li v e s o f t h e s e e l d er l y p er s on s a nd a tt e m p t e d t o p re ss u re J ac k i n t o si gn i ng ov er

t h e c oup l e’ s ho m e a nd acc oun ts is h i gh l y p r ob a ti v e o f h is cr imi n a l i n t e n t i n B e nd ts e n ’ s ca s e

.

A pp e ll a n t c on t e nd s B e nd ts e n wa n t e d t o m a k e f i r st a po wer

o f a tt o r n e y, a nd t

h e n a w ill
, i n h is

fa vo r , a nd t

h a t i n do i ng s o s h e t ra n s ferre d t h e bu l k o f h er e st a t e t o h im

vo l un t ar il y. T h e

F arr i ng t on e v i d e n ce , i f t h e j u r y b e li e v e d it
, s ho we d a pp e ll a n t ’ s i n t e n t t o is o l a t e fra il i nd i v i du a ls

fr o m t h e i r fa mili e s a nd p re ss u re t h e m i n t o l e g a ll y t ra n s ferr i ng p r op er t y, e s p ec i a ll y t h e i n t ere st i n

t h e i r ho m e s

.

O n t h e o t h er h a nd, we do no t s ee t h a t e v i d e n ce o f a pp e ll a n t ’ s re l a ti on s h i p w it h t h e

F arr i ng t on s w ou l d t e nd t o ca u s e t h e j u r y t o d ec i d e t h e B e nd ts e n ca s e on a n im p r op er b a sis

. T h e

e v i d e n ce t e nd e d t o s ho w a pp e ll a n t kn ew h e c ou l d is o l a t e e l d er l y i nd i v i du a ls fr o m t h e i r fa mili e s

a nd ob t a i n l e g a l t ra n s fer s o f t ho s e i nd i v i du a ls ’ po wer a nd m on e y t o h ims e l f

. T h e e v i d e n ce wa s

n ece ss ar y t o re bu t a pp e ll a n t ’ s ar gu m e n ts t h a t h is c ondu c t i nvo l v i ng B e nd ts e n wa s b a s e d s o l e l y

on affec ti on a nd a

d e si re f o r h er we ll

- b e i ng. Fi n a ll y, a pp e ll a n t wa s p r o t ec t e d fr o m mis u s e o f t h e

e v i d e n ce b eca u s e t h e t r i a l c ou r t i n st r u c t e d t h e j u r y c on cer n i ng u s e o f t h is , o r a ny, e x t ra n e ou s

o ffe n s e e v i d e n ce

. J u r o r s were t o l d t h e e v i d e n ce c ou l d b e u s e d on l y i f t h e y were p er s u a d e d

b e yond a rea s on a

b l e doub t t h a t a pp e ll a n t ac t u a ll y c o mmitt e d t h e wr ong f

u l ac t , a nd e v e n t h e n,

t h e y c ou l d c on si d er t h e e v i d e n ce on l y i n d e t er mi n i ng a pp e ll a n t ’ s i n t e n t , kno w l e dg e , o r p l a n i n

c onn ec ti on w it h t

h e B e nd ts e n ca s e

. We p re s u m e t h e j u r y f o ll o w s t h e t r i a l c ou r t ’ s i n st r u c ti on s i n–20–

t h e m a nn er

p re s e n t e d. T

h rift v . S t a t e , 176 S

. W .3d 221, 224 (Te x. C r im

. A pp. 2005 )

. We d is cer n

no v i o l a ti on o f r u l e 403 i n a d missi on o f t h e F arr i ng t on e v i d e n ce

.

We c on c l ud e t h e t r i a l c ou r t d i d no t a bu s e its d is cre ti on i n a d mitti ng t h e F arr i ng t on

e v i d e n ce

. We ov err u l e a

pp e ll a n t ’ s f

ou r t h iss u e

.
C o n c lusi o n

We h a v e d ec i d e d eac h o f a pp e ll a n t ’ s iss u e s a g a i n st h im

. Acc o r d i ng l y, we aff i r m t h e t r i a l

c ou r t ’ s j udg m e n t

.

P ub lis h T EX

. R

. A PP

. P . 47 121199 F

. P 05 /M o ll y F ra n c is/ M OLLY FR AN C I S J U S TI C E–21– 

### J U D G M E N T

M A R K MCC AY
, A pp e ll a n t

N o. 05

- 12

- 01199

- CR V

.

THE S TATE O F TEXA S
, A pp e ll ee O n A pp ea l fr o m t h e C r imi n a l D ist r i c t C ou r t N o. 4, Da ll a s C oun t y, Te x a s Tr i a l C ou r t C a u s e N o. F 11

- 00694 -K

. O p i n i on d e li v ere d by J u sti ce F ra n c is

. J u sti ce s B r o w n a nd St odd ar t p ar ti c i p a ti ng.

B a s e d on t h e C ou r t ’ s op i n i on o f t h is d a t e , t h e j udg m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c ou r t is AFF I RM E D

.

J udg m e n t e n t ere d S e p t e m b er 9, 2015.