CompFox AI Summary
Mary S. Roberts, the appellant, was found guilty on five counts of theft by coercion or deception, receiving a suspended sentence and ten years of community supervision. She appealed, citing insufficient evidence, mistake of law, jury instruction errors, indictment flaws, and the unconstitutionality of the theft statute. The core of the case involved Roberts and her husband, Ted Roberts, extorting money from four men with whom Mary had affairs. They used Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 petitions, threatening exposure and financial repercussions if the men failed to pay. The $115,000 obtained was diverted to personal and law firm expenses, rather than the purported children’s foundation. The court upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for theft by deception or coercion under the law of parties. It also dismissed her affirmative defense, objections to jury instructions and indictment, and constitutional challenges to the theft statute. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
Mary S. Roberts v. State is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio). 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, 4th District (San Antonio).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Mary S. Roberts, the appellant, was found guilty on five counts of theft by coercion or deception, receiving a suspended sentence and ten years of community supervision. She appealed, citing insufficient evidence, mistake of law, jury instruction errors, indictment flaws, and the unconstitutionality of the theft statute. The core of the case involved Roberts and her husband, Ted Roberts, extorting money from four men with whom Mary had affairs. They used Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 petitions, threatening exposure and financial repercussions if the men failed to pay. The $115,000 obtained was diverted to personal and law firm expenses, rather than the purported children’s foundation. The court upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for theft by deception or coercion under the law of parties. It also dismissed her affirmative defense, objections to jury instructions and indictment, and constitutional challenges to the theft statute. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.