Skip to main content

Garza v. State

Citations

  • 344 S.W.3d 409
  • 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 915
  • 2011 WL 2555704

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • observing that legislature gave “expansive meaning” to definition of “owner” “to give ownership status to anyone with a rational connection to the property”
  • explaining that penal code section 1.07(a)(35)(A)’s definition of ―owner‖ eliminates distinctions between general and special owners
  • stating the Penal Code’s definition of owner is “expansive” and “give[s] ownership status to anyone with a rational connection to the property”
  • determining that it was proper for the State to have alleged in its indictment that a computer company’s employee was the “owner” of stolen property, as a 8 company’s employee can be considered a “special owner” of the property under the theft statute
  • affirming theft conviction when corporate security investigator was identified in indictment as special owner of property actually owned by corporation, and he testified on corporation’s behalf at trial
  • “As a proper special owner, [an employee of a business] was competent to attest to the value of the stolen property....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alcala, Cochran, Hervey, Johnson, Keasler, Keller, Meyers, Price, Womack

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.