## Facts

- During Prohibition, Weeks wanted to move a large quantity of liquor up a bay to a nearby beach.
- Weeks and several friends took a boat owned by Mr. Raymond without Raymond’s consent to carry the liquor.
- The boat became stuck in shallow water and could not be moved.
- Weeks and his companions returned to Raymond’s boathouse and took Raymond’s smaller boat, also without consent, to try to tow the first boat back.
- They were unable to free the first boat and left the smaller boat in the water as well.
- Weeks was tried and convicted in a Texas trial court for theft of the boats.
- On appeal, Weeks argued he could not be guilty of theft because he did not intend to steal the boats but only to borrow them.

## Issues

1. In a theft prosecution requiring felonious intent, is it reversible error for the trial court to exclude defense evidence tending to show the defendant acted in good faith and intended only a temporary borrowing rather than a taking with intent to steal?

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Weeks’s theft conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that because criminal intent is an element of theft, Weeks was entitled to present evidence that he lacked felonious intent (including evidence supporting his “borrow only” theory), and excluding such evidence was error.

## Legal Principles

- Theft (larceny) requires proof of a felonious intent to steal; the State must prove the required mental state, not merely an unauthorized taking.
- Evidence that the accused intended only temporary use, or acted under a good-faith belief of a right to use or borrow the property, is relevant to whether the accused had the intent to steal.
- The defendant must be allowed to introduce evidence that tends to show lack of felonious intent; excluding evidence bearing on the defendant’s good faith is reversible error when intent is in dispute.
- Whether the defendant possessed the required intent is generally a jury question to be decided after the jury hears all admissible evidence on intent.

## Conclusion

Weeks v. State holds that a theft conviction cannot stand when the trial court keeps the jury from hearing evidence that the defendant lacked the intent to steal. Because theft requires felonious intent, Weeks was entitled to offer evidence supporting his claim that he meant only to borrow Raymond’s boats for temporary use, and the exclusion of that evidence required reversal and remand.


Weeks v. State, 25 S.W.2d 855 (1930)