Facts
- Ed Turner bought cotton located in a field.
- Turner and Charlie Mills negotiated for Mills to buy a portion of that cotton.
- Mills believed the parties agreed that Mills would pay $10 for the portion he was to receive.
- Based on that belief, Mills went to the field and picked cotton from the portion he thought he had bought.
- Mills sold the cotton he picked on the open market.
- Turner later went to Mills to collect payment, did not find him, and filed a theft complaint.
- Mills was prosecuted for theft arising out of the picking and sale of the cotton.
- At trial, Mills requested a jury instruction that if the jury believed Mills thought he had purchased the cotton he took, or if it had a reasonable doubt about that, it should acquit.
- The trial court refused the requested instruction, and Mills was convicted.
Issues
- Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury that a good-faith belief that Mills had purchased the cotton (a claim of right) would require acquittal because it negates the intent required for theft?
Decision
- Yes. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the refusal to submit the requested claim-of-right instruction was error when the evidence raised that defensive theory.
- The conviction was reversed and the cause was remanded for a new trial.
Legal Principles
- Theft requires a wrongful taking accompanied by a dishonest or fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of the property.
- If the accused, in good faith, believes the property is his or that he has bought it, that belief negates the fraudulent intent required for theft, even if the belief is mistaken.
- When evidence raises a defensive theory that would defeat an element of the offense (such as intent), the defendant is entitled, upon request, to an affirmative jury instruction submitting that theory.
- A trial court commits reversible error when it refuses a properly requested defensive instruction that is supported by the evidence and necessary for the jury to decide the defendant’s intent.
Conclusion
Mills v. State reversed a theft conviction because the evidence supported Mills’s claim that he honestly believed he had purchased the cotton, and the jury therefore needed an instruction allowing acquittal if it found that belief (or had a reasonable doubt), since a bona fide claim of right defeats the felonious intent element of theft.