Stepp v. State
1892 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 73, 20 S.W. 753, 31 Tex. Crim. 349 (1892)
Rule of Law:
The finder of lost property commits theft if, at the time of taking possession, they know or have reasonable means to know the owner and intend to appropriate the property to their own use, rather than merely holding it for a reward.
Facts:
- On June 25, 1891, Miss Arnett lost a watch, belonging to Miss Wilson, at the depot in Bertram.
- The defendant was present at the depot on the night the watch was lost.
- A few days later, the defendant suggested to a witness the propriety of offering a reward for the watch.
- Approximately four months after the loss, the defendant informed Dr. McCollum, Miss Wilson's husband, that he had seen a man with a watch bearing the name 'Wilson' scratched on it and asked if McCollum would pay $25 for it.
- The next day, the defendant telephoned Dr. McCollum, stating he had the watch and it cost him $35 to obtain it from a man in Austin.
- That same night, the defendant met Dr. Wilson, Miss Wilson's father, at the depot and returned the watch without demanding a reward.
- The defendant had, on other occasions, claimed the watch as his own and appeared to be trying to trade it off.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was convicted of theft of a watch in the trial court and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.
- Appellant appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a finder of lost property commit theft if they knew or could have known the owner through ordinary inquiry, intended to appropriate the property at the time of finding, and held it for an unreasonable period, even if they later returned it without demanding a reward?
Opinions:
Majority - Simkins, Judge
Yes, a finder of lost property commits theft if they knew or could have known the owner through ordinary inquiry, intended to appropriate the property at the time of finding, and held it for an unreasonable period, even if they later returned it without demanding a reward. The court found that the defendant was put on fair notice of ownership because he was at the depot where it was lost, knew the young ladies, and the watch was a lady's watch with the name 'Wilson' clearly legible on it. The critical inquiry is the intent with which the defendant retained possession: if to appropriate it to his own use, it was theft. The intent to steal must exist in the mind of the finder at the time they take possession of the property; a subsequent intent to steal does not make the original taking theft. While the property was voluntarily returned, the four-month detention was deemed an unreasonable time. The jury, considering the defendant's claims of ownership, attempts to trade the watch, and the lengthy detention, concluded he intended to appropriate it, and the court found no error in this conclusion. The jury instructions properly presented the distinction between intent to appropriate and intent to hold for a reward.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the elements of theft by finding, emphasizing that the finder's intent at the moment of taking possession is paramount. It establishes that knowledge of the owner (or reasonable means to discover the owner) combined with an intent to permanently appropriate constitutes theft, distinguishing it from merely holding property to claim a reward. The ruling also reinforces the jury's role in determining the reasonableness of the detention period and the finder's ultimate intent, providing a framework for future cases involving lost property.
