In Freeman v. State, 707 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), the defendant worked as a salesclerk for the business entity that owned the stolen merchandise while the alleged "owner" was the security manager employed by the same entity. Id. at 600-01. The security manager admitted she did not own the property because she did not have a greater possessory right than the defendant. Id. at 601. The court acknowledged that the defendant "owned" the property as the term is statutorily defined because she had just as much right, if not more, to the stolen property than the security guard. Nonetheless, the court affirmed the conviction because the defendant exercised "unauthorized" control over the property. Id. at 605. The Court of criminal appeals considered the competing rights of a corporate representative and an employee who appropriated property of the corporate employer. The court held that, when an employee, who has the right of control over a corporation's property, acts unlawfully to deprive the corporation of its property, the employee relinquishes his possessory interest in the property. Freeman, 707 S.W.2d at 605-06. At the moment of appropriation, any other employee has a greater right of possession to the property than does the employee who attempts to exercise unlawful control over the property. Id. The Court decided the question of "whether . . . Marsha F. Bourke, a security guard employed by Sears . . . had the greater right to possession of property owned by that company than did Gwendolyn Elaine Freeman, . . . a fellow employee of Bourke's who worked as a cashier-clerk at the same store." Id. at 600. While the court ultimately affirmed the theft conviction, it noted that before the commission of the offense, by Bourke's and Freeman's common positions as employees of the store, they had "equal competing possessory interests in the property." Id. at 603-04, 606.