In Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), the complainant was home during the day when she heard a rattling noise and subsequent bangs from a side door that had been nailed shut. Id. at 744. When she went to investigate, she saw the defendant trying to enter her home through a broken window that had not been broken before she heard the noises. Id. She startled the intruder, who ran. In Gear, the defendant testified that he thought the house he was entering was abandoned and that he went to the back of the house to urinate. Id. at 745. He further testified that he may have punched the wall of the house because he was angry at himself for having quit his job when he had no transportation and only about a dollar in his pocket. Id. At trial, he denied breaking the window. During the investigation, the defendant had told the police that he broke the window when he leaned on it and never said he hit the wall. Id. The court concluded: "On this record, we decide that a fact finder could reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that the recently unemployed appellant with about one dollar in his pocket intended to commit theft inside the complainant's home when he attempted to enter the home through the window that he had just broken and where the evidence also shows that appellant ran when interrupted by the complainant and that appellant gave conflicting and implausible explanations for his actions." Id. at 747-48. In Gear, in addition to a finding that the defendant was fleeing the scene, the majority found sufficient circumstances to infer specific intent by relying on evidence that Gear was unemployed with no transportation and a dollar in his pocket and that Gear gave untruthful, conflicting, and implausible stories. 340 S.W.3d at 747-48. In Gear v. State, the complainant testified that she was inside her home and heard a rattling noise from a side door that had been nailed shut. Id. at 744. Soon after, she heard loud bangs that prompted her to go into the bedroom to investigate. Id. She came "face to face with appellant as he was trying to enter her home through a broken window that was not broken before she heard the noises and before her encounter with appellant." Id. The defendant said something like, "I didn't do it" and ran. Id. At trial, the defendant testified that he did not attempt to break into the home; he thought it was abandoned and that he only went there to urinate. Id. at 745. He stated that he may have punched the house, but only because he was agitated at himself for just having quit his job, with no transportation and only about a dollar in his pocket. Id. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in reversing the court of appeals' judgment and thereby upholding the defendant's conviction, was swayed by the fact that the defendant was "interrupted as he was attempting to enter the complainant's home immediately after he had broken the complainant's window, at which time he ran." Id. at 747. The Court further considered "the additional evidence of appellant's joblessness, his lack of transportation and funds, his 'implausible' and inconsistent explanations for his conduct, and his flight upon being interrupted by the complainant" relevant to determining intent. Id. at 748.