CompFox AI Summary
Edwin Arnoldo Campos, an employee of Volt assigned to 3M, was indicted for first-degree felony theft exceeding $200,000. He illegally appropriated window-tinting materials from the 3M warehouse, selling them for cash through his business 3rd Coast Tinters and providing tinting services at the warehouse. Despite admitting his guilt to 3M security, Campos appealed his conviction, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence regarding ownership of the stolen property and the admission of a November 2006 inventory as a business record. The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that Kim Volner, a 3M auditing manager and shareholder, had a superior right to possession of the materials, thus qualifying as an owner under the Penal Code. The court also deemed the erroneous admission of the inventory record as harmless error due to other substantial evidence of theft.
Campos v. State is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston). This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Edwin Arnoldo Campos, an employee of Volt assigned to 3M, was indicted for first-degree felony theft exceeding $200,000. He illegally appropriated window-tinting materials from the 3M warehouse, selling them for cash through his business "3rd Coast Tinters" and providing tinting services at the warehouse. Despite admitting his guilt to 3M security, Campos appealed his conviction, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence regarding ownership of the stolen property and the admission of a November 2006 inventory as a business record. The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that Kim Volner, a 3M auditing manager and shareholder, had a superior right to possession of the materials, thus qualifying as an "owner" under the Penal Code. The court also deemed the erroneous admission of the inventory record as harmless error due to other substantial evidence of theft.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.