## Facts

- Fermin Perez parked his unlocked 1957 Ford outside a bowling alley with windows down and an alarm that sounded the horn if the car was entered.
- Perez later heard the horn, saw the car door open and a C.B. headset moved, and shut the door; the next morning he discovered a speaker box and about fifteen tapes missing.
- Johnny M. Valdez and 17-year-old Lupe Gutierrez spent the day together, went to the bowling alley, and left together.
- As Valdez walked toward his car, the horn sounded; Valdez saw Gutierrez coming toward him carrying the speaker box with tapes.
- Gutierrez testified he alone decided to take the tapes, entered the car without prior discussion with Valdez, and triggered the alarm.
- Gutierrez ran to Valdez’s car with the stolen property, and Valdez drove Gutierrez home.
- Gutierrez later returned some of the tapes to Perez; Valdez later spoke with police, said he knew about the burglary, and indicated he would try to recover remaining tapes.
- Valdez accompanied Gutierrez when additional tapes were returned and gave Perez a $60 check for unrecovered items.
- The State tried Valdez for burglary of a vehicle solely under the law of parties, relying on Valdez’s departure from the scene with Gutierrez, tapes later found in Valdez’s car, and Valdez’s later conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Valdez, as a party, intended to promote or assist the burglary of a vehicle.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove Valdez solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, or attempted to aid Gutierrez in committing the burglary.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered the prosecution dismissed.
- The court held the evidence did not establish that Valdez had the requisite intent to promote or assist the burglary.
- The court held the evidence did not show Valdez solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, or attempted to aid the burglary; it showed, at most, presence, association, and post-offense conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Party liability requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused (1) intended to promote or assist the offense and (2) solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, or attempted to aid its commission.
- Mere presence at or near the scene, association with the principal, or departure with the principal after the offense, without additional evidence of intent and assistance, is insufficient to establish party liability.
- Post-offense conduct such as possession explainable by another’s actions, assisting in return of property, or making restitution may raise suspicion but does not alone prove participation or the required intent at the time of the offense.

## Conclusion

Because the State’s proof relied on Valdez’s proximity to the offense, his driving Gutierrez away after the alarm sounded, and later efforts connected to recovering property, and did not show an advance agreement, shared intent, or affirmative assistance in the burglary, the evidence was legally insufficient to convict Valdez as a party; the conviction was reversed and the prosecution dismissed.


Valdez v. State, 623 S.W.2d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)