Donald Ray Griffin v. The State of Texas
614 S.W.2d 155 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The element of 'intent to deprive' in a robbery case is determined by the defendant's state of mind at the time of the taking, and the subsequent abandonment of the property does not, as a matter of law, negate that intent. A rational jury can infer intent to deprive from the defendant's words and actions during the commission of the offense.
Facts:
- The appellant hired a taxicab and gave the driver a series of innumerable directions on a long trip.
- Around midnight, the appellant directed the driver to turn onto a gravel street and park behind a building.
- The appellant took a revolver from his coat, pointed it at the driver, cocked it, and ordered the driver to get out of the cab.
- After the driver exited, the appellant told him to run.
- As the driver ran away, he heard a gunshot and looked back to see the appellant driving away in the taxicab.
- About 15 minutes later, police found the appellant walking approximately 6 miles from the robbery scene.
- The appellant was carrying the revolver, which had one spent shell under the hammer.
- The taxicab was found parked about 5 to 7 miles from the scene of the robbery, with the keys missing and the appellant's driver's license inside.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery.
- A jury in the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offense.
- The jury assessed punishment at 35 years' confinement.
- The appellant appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The appeal was temporarily abated to allow for the appointment of counsel for the indigent appellant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence that a defendant abandoned a stolen taxicab several miles from the crime scene shortly after the taking insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove he possessed the 'intent to deprive' the owner of the property, a required element for a robbery conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Roberts, Judge
No, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the appellant possessed the intent to deprive the owner of the property beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence requires the court to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime. The critical element is the defendant's intent at the time of the taking, not the actual duration of the deprivation. The fact that the deprivation later became temporary when the appellant abandoned the cab does not automatically mean he lacked the initial intent to deprive the owner permanently or for a period significant enough to satisfy the statutory definition. The appellant's acts of using a revolver, ordering the driver out, firing a shot, and driving away provide a sufficient basis from which a rational jury could infer the requisite intent, distinguishing this case from others where evidence more clearly showed an intent for only temporary use.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that under the Texas Penal Code, subsequent abandonment of stolen property is not a per se defense to robbery but rather evidence for the jury to weigh when determining the defendant's intent at the time of the taking. The court's application of the Jackson v. Virginia standard reinforces the high degree of deference given to a jury's factual findings regarding a defendant's state of mind. This ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to succeed on appeal with insufficiency of evidence claims when they abandon property after a theft, solidifying that the focus of the legal inquiry remains on the defendant's actions and inferred intent during the commission of the crime itself.
Unlock the full brief for Donald Ray Griffin v. The State of Texas