Cornwell v. State
No. PD-1501-14
Case Summary written by Ben Agee, Staff Member.
JUDGE YEARY delivered the opinion of the court in which PRESIDING JUDGE KELLER, JUDGES MEYERS, KEASLER, HERVEY, ALCALA, RICHARDSON, and NEWELL joined. JUDGE JOHNSON concurred in the result.
Facts: Appellant Robert Cornwell was convicted of impersonating a public servant after he was caught portraying himself to be a Dallas County assistant district attorney.
In May of 2012, Robert Cornwell learned that an arrest warrant had been issued for a friend of his, Michelle Salas, in Montgomery County. Upon learning of the arrest warrant, Cornwell called the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, and identified himself as an assistant district attorney for Dallas County. In conversations with Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney Kourtney Teaff, Cornwell mentioned several things intended to bolster his alias as a Dallas County ADA. For instance, Cornwell told Teaff that he had investigated Michelle Salas’s file, examined her medical records, and at one point in his pretend career, prosecuted his own nephew.
Teaff became suspicious during Cornwell’s recounting of his pretend accolades, and eventually began recording their conversations. Multiple times, Cornwell asked Teaff if she could do him a “personal favor” and treat Salas leniently. At no point did Cornwell assert that he had authority over Teaff, and Cornwell always used his real name.
Eventually, Cornwell was indicted under Texas Penal Code § 37.11(a)(1) for impersonating a public servant. The trial court convicted him, and the appellate court affirmed. On his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Cornwell alleged that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish the necessary intent under § 37.11(a)(1) to “induce another to submit to his pretended official authority.” Cornwell asserted that §37.11(a)(1) mandates that for a conviction, a person must not only impersonate a public servant, but must also commit an overt act as such.
Issue: Whether Texas Penal Code § 37.11(a)(1) requires that an overt act be committed to render a conviction.
Analysis: The court looked to the legislative history of § 37.11 for guidance in determining whether an overt act is required for conviction. The Practice Commentary of the statute noted that there was no specific requirement of an overt act, but that normally the State would have to prove an act to achieve the required intent. The court interpreted this to mean that there is not a requirement for an overt act to be committed.
In applying this analysis, the court noted that the only reason Cornwell would go to such lengths to trick Teaff into believing he was a Dallas County ADA was to give himself credibility in asking for a “personal favor.” The court noted that the Penal Code considers speech an act in its definitions, so that alone may have been enough of an overt act anyhow.
Furthermore, the court noted that while Cornwell was simply asking Teaff for a “personal favor,” he was in fact asking for a personal favor to a pretend person—the nonexistent Dallas ADA he was pretending to be.
Overall, the court found that the only reason Cornwall would call and portray himself as a Dallas County ADA was to increase his credibility before asking for a personal favor to treat his friend with leniency.
Holding: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments of both the trial and appellate courts and upheld Cornwell’s conviction.