LAW SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE

The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of burglary of a vehicle.

Relevant Statutes

A person commits the offense of burglary of a vehicle if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.

Definitions

Enter

“Enter” means to intrude (1) any part of the body or (2) any physical object connected with the body.

Vehicle

“Vehicle” includes any device in, on, or by which any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in the normal course of commerce or transportation, except such devices as are classified as “habitation.”

Habitation

“Habitation” means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes (1) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle and (2) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.

Owner

“Owner” means a person who has title to the property, possession of the property, whether lawful or not, or a greater right to possession of the property than the actor.

Consent

“Consent” means assent in fact, whether express or apparent.

Effective Consent

[Include relevant parts of definition as raised by the evidence.]

“Effective consent” includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if it is—

1. induced by force, threat, or fraud;
2. given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner;
3. given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable decisions; or
4. given solely to detect the commission of an offense.

With the Intent to Commit a Felony or Theft

A person intends to commit a felony or theft when the person has the conscious objective or desire to commit the felony or theft.

Knew the Owner of the Vehicle Did Not Effectively Consent to His Breaking or Entry

A person knows the owner of the vehicle did not effectively consent to his entry or breaking into the vehicle if he is aware the owner of the vehicle did not effectively consent.

Was Reckless as to Whether the Owner Effectively Consented to His Breaking or Entry

A person is reckless as to whether the owner of the vehicle did effectively consent to his entry or breaking into the vehicle when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the owner has not effectively consented. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.

[Insert definitions appropriate for offense intended at the time of entry, which might include, among others, the following. When the offense intended is a felony instead of a theft, include an instruction that the alleged felony is a felony.]

Theft

Theft is a criminal offense requiring proof that—

1. the person appropriated property of another; and
2. that appropriation was unlawful; and
3. the person did this with the intent to deprive the owner of the property.

Application of Law to Facts

You must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, four elements. The elements are that—

1. the defendant, in [county] County, Texas, on or about [date], broke into or entered a vehicle or any part of a vehicle;
2. the defendant did so with the intent to commit a felony or theft;
3. the owner of the vehicle did not effectively consent to this breaking or entry; and
4. the defendant knew the owner did not effectively consent to his breaking or entry or was reckless as to whether the owner effectively consented to his breaking or entry.

You must all agree on elements 1, 2, 3, and 4 listed above.

If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of these four elements, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the four elements listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

[Insert any other instructions raised by the evidence. Then continue with the verdict form found in CPJC 2.1, the general charge.]