Krause v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish theft based on Krause taking possession of the car by entering the car, sitting behind the driver’s seat, and breaking the lock on the steering wheel
• noting that the automobile “was not at the place where [the owner] had parked it but had been moved”
• noting that the automobile “was not at the place where [the owner] had parked it but had been moved”
• “We are of the opinion that the offense was complete when appellant took possession of the automobile since asportation is not a necessary element of the offense....”
• “We are of the opinion that the offense was complete when appellant took possession of the automobile since asportation is not a necessary element of the offense . . . .”
• “We are of the opinion that the offense was complete 13 when appellant took possession of the automobile since asportation is not a necessary element of the offense . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bullock v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2016-12-14· cited 113×
• Bullock, Henry Richard Jr. A/K/A Imari Abybakari
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 2015-10-20· cited 4×
• Henry Richard Bullock, Jr. AKA Imari Abybakari v. State
  Texas Supreme Court· 2015-10-20

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Glover v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1941-05-04· cited 10×
• Grant v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1940-05-22· cited 6×
• Smithson v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1933-05-31· cited 1×