In Eodice v. State, 742 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. App.--Austin 1987, no pet.), the Austin Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether the items in Eodice's possession amounted to a criminal instrument. At approximately 2:00 a.m., a police officer spotted Eodice standing in the doorway of a pawn shop that was not then open for business. Id. at 845. When the officer inquired about Eodice's heavy black leather gloves, Eodice told the officer that he used the gloves for driving. Id. Upon further inspection, the officer found an assortment of tools, including a feeler gauge, a circuit tester, and a bent cotter pin in Eodice's vehicle. Id. The officer also discovered Eodice was carrying a military-style flashlight equipped with a red filter inside one of his socks and a fourteen--inch pry bar in the other sock. Id. In Eodice's wallet was a California "alarm agent" certificate. Id. Based on testimony that the circuit tester could be used to disable a burglar alarm, and the feeler gauge, in combination with a cotter pin, the officer determined the cotter pin could be used as a lock pick. Id. at 847. The officer also testified that the cotter pin was bent into an "L" shape and was twisted in an unusual manner. Id. The court, however, concluded that based on the statutory definition of criminal instrument, "the commission of a crime must be the object's primary purpose." Id. at 846. Because "there was no evidence that the circuit tester found in Eodice's car had been specially designed or specially made for use in the commission of burglary," the court concluded the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction for use of a criminal instrument. Id. at 846-47.