The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of theft.

Relevant Statutes

A person commits the offense of theft if the person unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of the property and [the value of the property is $[amount] or more but less than $[amount]/[insert other basis for grade of offense from Texas Penal Code section 31.03(e)–(f), e.g., the property was a driver’s license]].

Definitions

Appropriate Property

A person appropriates property if the person—

1. acquires the property; or
2. otherwise exercises control over the property; or
3. brings about a transfer or purported transfer of title or any other nonpossessory interest in the property, whether that transfer or purported transfer is to the defendant or another.

Owner

“Owner” means a person who has—

1. title to the property; or
2. possession of the property, whether lawful or not; or
3. a greater right to possession of the property than the defendant.

Possession

“Possession” means actual care, custody, control, or management.

Intent to Deprive of Property

A person has the intent to deprive another of property if the person has the conscious objective or desire to—

1. withhold the property from the owner permanently; or
2. withhold the property from the owner for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner; or
3. restore the property only on payment of reward or other compensation; or
4. dispose of the property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.

Property

“Property” means—

1. [tangible/intangible] personal property [including anything severed from land]; or
2. real property; or
3. a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value.

Unlawful Appropriation

Appropriation of property is unlawful if—

1. it is without the consent of [the owner/a person legally authorized to act for the owner]; or
2. it is with such consent but that consent is ineffective.

Consent Rendered Ineffective by Deception

Consent to the appropriation of property is rendered ineffective if the defendant engaged in deception and by this deception induced that consent. The defendant engaged in deception if—

[Include only those means of deception supported by the evidence.]

1. the defendant created or confirmed by words or conduct a false impression of law or fact that was likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction and the defendant did not believe this impression of law or fact to be true; or
2. the defendant failed to correct a false impression of law or fact that was likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, the defendant previously created or confirmed this false impression, and the defendant did not believe this impression of law or fact to be true; or
3. the defendant prevented another from acquiring information likely to affect that person’s judgment in the transaction; or
4. the defendant promised performance that was likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction and the defendant either did not intend to perform or knew that he would not perform; or
5. the defendant sold or otherwise transferred or encumbered property without disclosing a lien, security interest, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether the lien, security interest, claim, or impediment was or was not valid or was or was not a matter of official record.

Intent That Promise Not Be Performed

A person does not intend to perform a promise if the person does not have the conscious objective or desire to perform the promise.

Knowledge That Promise Would Not Be Performed

A person knows he will not perform a promise if he is reasonably certain that he will not perform the promise.

Proof of Deceptive Promise to Perform

The defendant’s lack of intent to perform or knowledge that he would not perform a promised act cannot be proved simply by evidence that the defendant failed to perform. Other evidence of intent or knowledge is required.

Consent Rendered Ineffective by Coercion

Consent to the appropriation of property is rendered ineffective if the defendant engaged in coercion and by this coercion induced that consent. The defendant engaged in coercion if the defendant threatened—

[Include only those types of coercion supported by the evidence.]

1. to commit an offense; or
2. to inflict bodily injury in the future on the person threatened or another; or
3. to accuse a person of any offense; or
4. to expose a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or
5. to harm the credit or business repute of any person; or
6. to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action.

A threat can be communicated in any manner.

Value of Property

The value of property is the fair market value at the time of the appropriation.

Application of Law to Fact

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], appropriated property, specifically [insert specific allegations, e.g., gold coins owned by [name]] by acquiring or otherwise exercising control of the property; and
2. the appropriation was unlawful because [insert specific basis for appropriation’s being unlawful, e.g., [name], the owner, did not consent to the appropriation]; and
3. the defendant intended to [insert specific acts, e.g., dispose of the property in a manner that would have made recovery by the owner unlikely] and thus deprive [name], the owner, of the property; and
4. [the value of the property was $[amount] or more/[insert other basis for grade of offense from Texas Penal Code section 31.03(e)–(f), e.g., the property was a driver’s license]].

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 elements 1, 2, 3, and 4 listed above, 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.]