LAW SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE

The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information.

Relevant Statutes

A person commits the offense of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information if the person, with the intent to harm or defraud another, obtains, possesses, transfers, or uses [five or more/ten or more/fifty or more] items of identifying information of other persons without the other persons’ consent or effective consent.

Definitions

Identifying Information

“Identifying information” means information that alone or in conjunction with other information identifies a person, including a person’s—

1. name and date of birth;
2. unique biometric data, including the person’s fingerprint, voice print, or retina or iris image;
3. unique electronic identification number, address, routing code, or financial institution account number;
4. telecommunication identifying information or access device; and
5. social security number or other government-issued identification number.

Telecommunication Access Device

“Telecommunication access device” means a card, plate, code, account number, personal identification number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrument identifier or means of account access that alone or in conjunction with another telecommunication access device may be used to—

1. obtain money, goods, services, or other thing of value; or
2. initiate a transfer of funds other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument.

Possession

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

Harm

“Harm” means anything reasonably regarded as loss, disadvantage, or injury, including harm to another person in whose welfare the person affected is interested.

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.

Intent to Harm or Defraud Another

“Intent to harm or defraud another” means the conscious objective or desire to harm or defraud another.

Presumption of Intent to Harm or Defraud Another

The law provides for a presumption that you may wish to apply in this case. This presumption can apply only if you find the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed the identifying information of three or more other persons.

If you find the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed the identifying information of three or more persons, then you may infer from this fact that the defendant had the intent to harm or defraud another. You are not, however, required to infer or find this even if you find that the defendant possessed the identifying information of three or more other persons.

If you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant possessed the identifying information of three or more other persons, the presumption does not arise or apply. In that case, you will not consider this presumption for any purpose.

If you conclude you cannot apply the presumption or you choose not to apply it, you must still consider whether—without reference to the presumption—the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to harm or defraud another.

If you apply this presumption, you may conclude that the state has proved intent to harm or defraud another. If you do decide to apply the presumption to show the state has proved intent to harm or defraud another, you must still find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the state has proved the defendant obtained, possessed, transferred, or used [five/ten/fifty] or more items of identifying information of other persons and that the defendant did this without the consent or effective consent of the other persons.

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], [obtained/possessed/transferred/used] items of identifying information of other persons as follows:

[List items alleged as identifying information and alleged other persons, such as the following.]

Items Alleged as Identifying Information	Alleged Other Persons
[name and date of birth]	[name of person 1]
[social security number]	[name of person 1]
[name and date of birth]	[name of person 2]
[social security number]	[name of person 2]
[name and date of birth]	[name of person 3]
[name and date of birth]	[name of person 4]
[social security number]	[name of person 4]

[Continue with the following.]

2. the other persons did not consent or effectively consent to the defendant’s [possession/transfer/use] of their identifying information;
3. the defendant had the intent to harm or defraud another; and
4. the number of items of identifying information that the defendant [obtained/possessed/transferred/used] totaled [five/ten/fifty] or more.

You must all agree on elements 1, 2, 3, and 4 listed above, but you do not have to agree on the specific items listed in element 1 above as long as you all agree that the state has proved enough of the listed items that the number of items totaled [five/ten/fifty] or more.

If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of elements 1, 2, 3, or 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.]