Court Opinion

ID: 9775721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:08:08.902973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:30.686620
License: Public Domain

ROWE, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result only. I differ with that part of the majority opinion which overrules appellant’s first point of error by distinguishing Gardner v. State, 736 S.W.2d 179 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. granted). Appellant expressly urges under his first point that the State carried the burden to establish that he knew the vehicle he was driving was stolen and that the State failed to meet this burden. The majority, following the two step analysis in Gardner, concludes that although as in Gardner the State had this burden, the evidence in this case, unlike that in Gardner, is sufficient to establish scienter. For those reasons assigned in my dissent in Gardner, I would hold that the State did not have such burden, and I would not address the sufficiency of evidence complaint.
I adopt in full the majority’s opinion with respect to disposition of appellant’s second point of error.