[Insert instructions for underlying offense.]

Presumption of Intent

In some cases, Texas law provides for what are called “presumptions.” A “presumption” is simply a conclusion that you may, but are not required to, reach when the state proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, an underlying fact.

In this case, the law provides for a presumption that the defendant intended to avoid payment if you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant absconded without paying for [insert type of service, e.g., a meal at a restaurant], as alleged in the indictment.

If you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant absconded without paying for [insert type of service, e.g., a meal at a restaurant], as alleged in the indictment, you may infer from this fact that he intended to avoid payment. You are not required to infer this, however, even if you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he absconded without paying for [insert type of service, e.g., the meal].

If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant absconded without paying for [insert type of service, e.g., the meal], you may not infer that he intended to avoid payment for [insert type of service, e.g., the meal]. The presumption does not apply in such a case, and you are not to consider it for any purpose.

If you decide that the presumption does not apply, or that you do not wish to use it, you must decide whether other evidence—not including the presumption—proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to avoid payment.

If you decide to use the presumption, you may find that the defendant intended to avoid payment. You must still decide, however, whether the state has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the other elements of theft of service, as listed above.

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