PJC General Negligence 2022

PJC 7.3

T HEFT L IABILITY

Tex. Penal Code § 31.04(a) provides for several quite different ways of committing the offense of theft of service. The Committee has addressed the instructions appropri ate for what it regarded as the primary form of the offense: obtaining services by deception, as defined in Tex. Penal Code § 31.04(a)(1). Caveat regarding deception. Under Tex. Penal Code § 31.04(a)(1), the decep tion must be the means by which the services are secured. Thus deception—such as presenting as good an insufficient-funds check—after the service is rendered is not sufficient. Gibson v. State , 623 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Cortez v. State , 582 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Definition of “false token.” There is no statutory definition of the term “false token.” In one unreported case it was defined by the following: “‘False token’ is a thing or object or document which is used as a means to defraud and which is of such character that, were it not false, it would commonly be accepted as what it obviously appears and purports to be.” Middleton v. State , Nos. 14-07-00946-CR, 14-07-00947 CR, 2009 WL 196063, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 29, 2009, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (appellant did not dispute definition and did not deny that checks involved fell within definition).

100