S.M., a child v. State

I dissent from the majority opinion because the evidence presented at trial did not support a prima facie case for petit theft. Appellant’s testimony was unrebut-ted that he had no reason to believe the bicycle was stolen, and that he did not know it was stolen until informed by a police officer. Upon questioning, he told the officer that he knew the person who had taken the bicycle, and that he would find the bicycle and bring it back. Appellant identified this individual'as “Jeffrey,” and although he did not know this individual’s last name, address, or phone number, he did know that…