Legal Question in Criminal Law in Texas

Please interpert

The error of Casey [633 S.W.2d 885, Tex.Crim.App., 1982] is precipitated by its focus on the 'manner of acquisition' of personal property, a focus the Legislature removed entirely from the theft statute, then further refined in the 1975 legislative session. Just as it has been in the past recognized that the actor's intent to 'benefit himself or another' or to 'withhold the property permanently' are not essential to commission of a theft, so too has it now been acknowledged that the 'manner of acquisition' is inconsequential to the evil of a theft: the gravamen of theft is in depriving the true owner of the use, benefit, enjoyment or value of his property, [emphasis in original] without his consent.

Thus, the varying misleading emphases on aspects of acquisitive conduct proscribed under former penal codes were sifted out by the new, and a single offense was distilled from the common elements contained in each: clearly, if one exercises control over property knowing it is without the owner's consent, and intending to deprive the owner of it, it matters not 'how' the actor got the property, [emphasis added] whether he intended to benefit himself or another, intended 'permanently' to deprive the owner etc.

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in Texas

Looking for something else?