Skip to main content

Rowland v. State

Citations

  • 744 S.W.2d 610
  • 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 22
  • 1988 WL 8331

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that “[w]hile evidence of actual deprivation may be evidence of intent to deprive, other evidence may also indicate whether intent to deprive exists”
  • explaining that although vehicle was eventually returned to owner, defendant was still guilty of theft because, among other reasons, he was not individual who “returned the truck”
  • explaining that although vehicle was eventually returned to owner, defendant was still guilty of theft because, among other reasons, he was not individual who “returned the truck”
  • noting that defendant’s failure to contact truck owner to explain why he had not 11 returned truck as promised was evidence of his intent to deprive the owner of the truck
  • noting intent to permanently deprive can be inferred from manner in which property is taken
  • intent inferred where defendant borrowed a truck from victim and promised to return it in three days, but never did

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Campbell, Clinton, Duncan, Miller, Teague

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

6 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.