Byrd v. State

In Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), the alleged owner of the items, which were stolen from a Wal-Mart, was not an employee of the store, did not testify at trial, was not referenced by either party at trial, and seems to have had no connection whatsoever to any Wal-Mart store. 336 S.W.3d at 254. As the court noted, the indictment may as well have alleged that "Carnac the Magnificent" owned the property in question. Id. It is well settled under Texas law that ownership may be alleged in either the actual owner or a special owner, which is someone who has actual custody or control of property belonging to another person. It is "perfectly permissible" to name a corporation "as the owner of the property and then call any agent or employee who holds a relevant position in the company to testify that the corporation did not give effective consent for a person to steal or shoplift its property." Id. at 252.