Summary
concluding that evidence was sufficient to support jury's finding that defendant intended to deprive owner of cattle when, among other circumstances, defendant planned to butcher steer and directed others to place steer in pen located on his property rather than remove steer from premises or return it to its owner
Summary of this case from Thompson v. StateOpinion
No. 07-03-0302-CR
October 13, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 222nd District Court of Deaf Smith County, No. CR-99L-112, Hon. H. Bryan Poff, Presiding.
Panel D: Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Jose Inez Carrizales, Jr. (appellant) appeals his conviction for theft of cattle. Via a single issue, appellant contends the evidence was legally insufficient to "prove the requisite intent to deprive the owner of his property at the time the property was obtained." We affirm.
Background
Jason Jesko (Jesko) testified that in August of 1999 he worked for Barrett Crofoot (Barrett), a feedyard. Jerry Garcia (Garcia) was a co-employee, and together they decided to steal a steer from their employer. On August 21st and while using his grandmother's trailer, Jesko, along with Garcia, removed a steer from a pen. The steer taken had markings on its ear identifying it as belonging to Barrett. Furthermore, the animal initially was hauled to the FFA barn in Hereford, Texas, but later taken to the in-laws of Garcia for butchering. Appellant was present at the latter site when the steer arrived. According to Jesko, however, he did not inform appellant that it had been stolen. Thereafter, the ear tag was removed. Jesko, later, believed that his steer had been butchered and returned for his share of the meat. The meat he received, however, was from another steer, not the one he had taken. On September 5, 1999, (some two weeks after the theft) Jesko informed Rodney Barrett (Rodney) (owner of the feedyard) of the theft. Rodney then contacted a local deputy sheriff about the matter. At that time, Rodney knew that the animal was located at a house whereat appellant resided with his parents. Both the deputy and Rodney went to the house. When they arrived at the home, they asked appellant's father if they could search his premises for the stolen steer; he agreed. The steer was then located and returned to Barrett. The deputy eventually took statements from both Jesko and Garcia. So too was one taken from appellant. The latter was read into the record as follows:Jerry Garcia asked me one day if he ever had a crippled steer from the feed yard, could he bring it to my dad's house and have it butchered. I told him that it was okay. Then one night Jerry called me on the phone and said that he had a steer that he got from the feed yard and could he bring [sic] to my dad's house. I told him to bring it the next day. Jerry and Jason Jesko came to the house the next day with the steer. When I saw the steer was not crippled, and I looked at Jerry and he told me that they had stole it from a feed yard. I told Jerry that was his deal and that I did not want anything to do with it. Then my dad came over and I told him what was going on. He got mad and said, `Do whatever you need to do.' I told Jerry and Jason to put it in the pen. A couple of days later they came back and butchered one of dad's steers, and dad just kept the one they brought from the feed yard.Garcia testified that he told Jesko that his brother-in-law (appellant) would butcher the steer, that they initially informed appellant that the steer was "broke" but appellant later discovered that it wasn't "broken," that nothing was said by appellant, and that the steer was placed in a pen. Via a statement previously given to the deputy and admitted into evidence, Garcia testified that he told appellant that the steer was stolen before transporting it to appellant's residence and appellant directed him to bring it anyway. Garcia recanted this statement at trial, however. Instead, he testified that he simply informed appellant that the steer was "broke," not stolen. Rodney testified that Jesko came to him and admitted the theft. He then went to the location whereat he knew the animal to be and found it. At that time it was removed from the pen and returned to him.