Valdez v. State
623 S.W. 2d 317, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1237 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person cannot be convicted as a party to an offense if their involvement, such as aiding the perpetrator's escape, occurs only after the crime has been fully completed. Such post-offense conduct may constitute a separate crime, like hindering apprehension, but does not create liability for the original offense.
Facts:
- Fermín Perez left his 1957 Ford automobile unlocked with the windows down outside a bowling alley, with an alarm set to blow the horn if the vehicle was entered.
- Johnny M. Valdez and his 16-year-old neighbor, Lupe Gutierrez, went to the bowling alley together.
- As they were leaving, Valdez walked about twenty feet ahead of Gutierrez.
- Gutierrez entered Perez's car and took a speaker box containing about fifteen tapes, which triggered the car's horn alarm.
- Valdez heard the alarm, looked back, and saw Gutierrez running towards his car with the speaker box.
- Valdez drove Gutierrez away from the bowling alley in his car with the stolen items inside.
- Later, Valdez and Gutierrez returned several of the stolen tapes to Perez.
- Valdez and his father also paid Perez $60.00 for the unrecovered tapes and the speaker box.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnny M. Valdez was charged by indictment with burglary of a vehicle in a Texas trial court.
- A jury found Valdez guilty of the offense as charged.
- The trial court assessed punishment at five years of confinement.
- Valdez, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
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 sufficient to convict a defendant of burglary of a vehicle as a party when his only actions were to drive the principal away from the scene and temporarily possess some of the stolen goods after the burglary was already complete?
Opinions:
Majority - Clinton, Judge.
No, the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction. To be guilty as a party to an offense under § 7.02(a)(2) of the Texas Penal Code, a person must act with intent to promote or assist in the commission of the offense before or contemporaneously with the criminal event. In this case, there is no evidence that Valdez had any common purpose or design with Gutierrez before or during the burglary. All of Valdez's actions—driving Gutierrez from the scene and being found with two of the tapes—occurred after the burglary was completed by Gutierrez. This post-offense conduct, formerly known as being an 'accessory,' is now a separate crime of 'hindering apprehension' under § 38.05 and does not make one a party to the original burglary.
Dissenting - Clinton, Judge.
No, the evidence is not sufficient. (This dissent was written on rehearing, disagreeing with an unprovided en banc majority opinion that reversed the original panel). The State's case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence of Valdez's presence, flight, and subsequent possession of some stolen items. There is no direct evidence that Valdez participated in the 'entry' of the vehicle, which is the forbidden conduct of burglary. Merely disbelieving the exculpatory testimony of Valdez and Gutierrez does not affirmatively establish the State's case. The State failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis that Valdez was merely an accessory after the fact, not a party to the burglary itself.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between liability as a party to a crime and liability for post-offense conduct under the Texas Penal Code. It establishes that to be convicted as a party, the defendant's assistance or encouragement must occur before or during the commission of the underlying offense. Actions taken only after the crime is complete, such as helping the principal escape, do not create party liability for that crime; instead, they may form the basis for a separate charge like hindering apprehension. This holding prevents the state from convicting a defendant for a primary offense based solely on evidence of being an accessory after the fact.
