Kent v. Texas (original by judge johnson)
Annotate this CaseAn indictment alleged that appellant Kevin Kent, a mortgage broker, had committed theft from four named complainants in an amount exceeding $200,000 and that the thefts occurred over a specified period and were pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct. A jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay restitution to the complainants. On appeal, appellant alleged the trial court erred in instructing the jury. The court of appeals agreed, reversed the trial court’s judgment, and remanded for a new trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the state’s petition for discretionary review challenging that decision. The state argued that appellant’s requested jury-charge instruction, which identified each separate transaction in the aggregated theft and required unanimity on each one, “was incorrect because it was phrased in the conjunctive.” It also argued that “such unanimity was not required because aggregate theft is considered to be one offense, " adding that “appellant was not harmed, either egregiously or otherwise, because his defense did not depend on separating and defeating each individual transaction.” After review, the Court found that the jury was not erroneously instructed, reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.