## Facts

- Brian Gonzales left his Ford Ranger running on the street around 4:30 a.m. while he briefly went inside his home.
- Gonzales heard the engine rev and saw someone drive the truck away; he promptly reported the theft to police.
- About thirty minutes later and roughly five miles away, an officer located the truck being driven; the officer pursued after the truck passed in the opposite direction.
- The driver stopped, exited, and fled on foot; a K-9 unit located the suspect hiding on a nearby porch.
- Police identified and arrested Willis Elbert Morris, charging him with second-degree theft of a motor vehicle and seeking habitual-offender sentencing.
- At trial, the jury was instructed on second-degree theft and the lesser-included offense of operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent; the jury convicted Morris of the greater theft offense.
- The record contained no direct evidence that Morris intended to keep, sell, conceal, damage, or otherwise permanently deprive Gonzales of the truck; the proof showed only a short-distance taking, abandonment, and flight.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Morris intended to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle, as required for second-degree theft of a motor vehicle under Iowa law.
2. Whether a short-term taking followed by abandonment and flight supports an inference of intent to permanently deprive, rather than only unauthorized use.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of Morris’s second-degree theft conviction.
- The Court held the State’s evidence was insufficient to permit a rational jury to find intent to permanently deprive at the time of the taking.
- The Court reversed the district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the insufficiency ruling (including proceedings consistent with the lesser-included unauthorized-use offense on which the jury was instructed).

## Legal Principles

- Second-degree theft of a motor vehicle requires proof of intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession.
- Intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, but the inference must be reasonable and supported by evidence; speculation cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A brief, localized taking of a vehicle followed by abandonment, without additional indicia (e.g., concealment, damage, extended retention, or disposal efforts), does not by itself support an inference of intent to permanently deprive and is as consistent with unauthorized use.
- Evidence of flight may show consciousness of wrongdoing but does not, without more, establish consciousness of the specific intent element distinguishing theft from unauthorized use.

## Conclusion

Because the State proved only a short-term, nonconsensual taking, prompt abandonment, and flight—facts consistent with unauthorized use as well as theft—the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Morris intended to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle, requiring reversal of the theft conviction and remand for proceedings consistent with that determination.


State v. Morris, 677 N.W.2d 787 (Iowa 2004)