Eric Ralls v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-98-00212-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 17, 1999; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Eric Ralls was convicted of theft by check for writing two checks totaling $515 to Skydive San Marcos, which were returned due to insufficient funds. The jury was instructed on the statutory presumption of intent under Texas Penal Code section 31.06, which applies when an individual issues a check without sufficient funds and fails to make payment within ten days after being notified of the check's return. The trial court sentenced Ralls to 365 days in jail, probated for two years, and imposed a $2,000 fine. Ralls appealed, arguing that the jury instruction regarding the presumption of intent was erroneous due to insufficient evidence. The court reviewed the evidence, including testimony from the Skydive owner and a bank manager, confirming Ralls had a negative account balance when the checks were written. The court found that the evidence, viewed favorably for the prosecution, sufficiently demonstrated the elements required to support the presumption of intent, leading to the affirmation of Ralls' conviction.

Sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the instruction of a presumption of intent to commit theft by the appellant. Testimony from State witnesses indicated that the appellant's bank account lacked sufficient funds to cover two checks written to Skydive on June 30, 1995, and that Skydive made multiple unsuccessful attempts to collect payment from him. The existence of deposits in the appellant's account that had not cleared did not diminish the clarity of the evidence. Viewed favorably for the prosecution, a reasonable juror could conclude that the evidence established a presumption of intent to steal services from Skydive. Consequently, the trial court's instruction to the jury on the presumption of intent under section 36.01 was deemed appropriate. The appellant's sole point of error is overruled, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed. The excerpt cites section 31.06, which outlines conditions under which issuing a check without sufficient funds serves as prima facie evidence of intent to commit theft or theft of services, along with notice requirements for the issuer. It clarifies that partial restitution does not negate the presumption of intent.

An actor who obtains property by issuing a check or similar payment order is presumed to intend to deprive the owner of that property under Section 31.03 (Theft), unless it involves a postdated check or order. This presumption holds if the actor: (1) instructed the bank to stop payment, (2) the bank refused payment within 30 days of issuance, (3) the owner notified the actor of the refusal and demanded payment or return of property, and (4) the actor failed to either pay the holder within 10 days or return the property within 10 days of the demand. 

Additionally, if the actor issued a check without sufficient funds in their account to cover it, this serves as prima facie evidence of intent to deprive the owner of property under Section 31.03, including cases involving third-party holders of the check. This applies if the actor either (1) had no account with the bank at the time of issuance or (2) the bank refused payment due to insufficient funds, and the actor did not make full payment within 10 days after notification of refusal. 

Notice for demand can be given through actual notice or written notice via registered or certified mail or telegram, addressed to the issuer's specified address on the check or bank records, and must clearly state it is a demand for full payment due to lack of funds.