Sec. 31.18. CARGO THEFT. (a) In this section:
(1) "Cargo" means goods, as defined by Section 7.102, Business & Commerce Code, that constitute, wholly or partly, a commercial shipment of freight moving in commerce. A shipment is considered to be moving in commerce if the shipment is located at any point between the point of origin and the final point of destination regardless of any temporary stop that is made for the purpose of transshipment or otherwise.
(2) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 541.201, Transportation Code.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) knowingly or intentionally conducts, promotes, or facilitates an activity in which the person receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, abandons, or disposes of:
(A) stolen cargo; or
(B) cargo explicitly represented to the person as being stolen cargo; or
(2) is employed as a driver lawfully contracted to transport a specific cargo by vehicle from a known point of origin to a known point of destination and, with the intent to conduct, promote, or facilitate an activity described by Subdivision (1), knowingly or intentionally:
(A) fails to deliver the entire cargo to the known point of destination as contracted; or
(B) causes the seal to be broken on the vehicle or on an intermodal container containing any part of the cargo.
(c) An offense under this section is:
(1) a state jail felony if the total value of the cargo involved in the activity is $1,500 or more but less than $10,000;
(2) a felony of the third degree if the total value of the cargo involved in the activity is $10,000 or more but less than $100,000;
(3) a felony of the second degree if the total value of the cargo involved in the activity is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or
(4) a felony of the first degree if the total value of the cargo involved in the activity is $200,000 or more.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (c), the total value of the cargo involved in the activity includes the value of any vehicle stolen or damaged in the course of the same criminal episode as the conduct that is the subject of the prosecution.
(e) An offense described for purposes of punishment by Subsections (c)(1)-(3) is increased to the next higher category of offense if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the person organized, supervised, financed, or managed one or more other persons engaged in an activity described by Subsection (b).
(f) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the offense occurred as a result of a deception or strategy on the part of a law enforcement agency, including the use of:
(A) an undercover operative or peace officer; or
(B) a bait vehicle;
(2) the actor was provided by a law enforcement agency with a facility in which to commit the offense or with an opportunity to engage in conduct constituting the offense; or
(3) the actor was solicited to commit the offense by a peace officer, and the solicitation was of a type that would encourage a person predisposed to commit the offense to actually commit the offense but would not encourage a person not predisposed to commit the offense to actually commit the offense.
Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1219 (S.B. 1828), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2015.
Amended by:
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 324 (S.B. 1488), Sec. 15.001, eff. September 1, 2017.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case:
Daryl Joe v. State of Texas, No. 10-18-00221-CR (Tex. App.—Waco June 7, 2023).
Daryl Joe v. State of Texas, No. 10-18-00221-CR (Tex. App.—Waco June 7, 2023).
· cites it 8× “See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.18(a)(1); see also Joe I, 620 S.”
JOE, DARYL v. State of Texas, 726 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
· cites it 6× “OPINION This case asks the Court to decide one general question and one more specific question: (1) whether the cargo theft statute, TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.18, is materially different from the organized retail theft statute, TEX.”
Joe, Daryl, No. PD-0268-21 (Tex. Crim. App. June 22, 2022).
· cites it 5× “TEX. PENAL CODE Ann. § 31.18(a)(1). It provides that the shipment of freight is considered moving in commerce even if it is temporarily stopped for transshipment.”
Daryl Joe v. State, 620 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021).
· cites it 4× “See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.18(a)(1). The fact that the goods were still in the shipping yard is of no consequence because, under section 31.”
JOE, DARYL v. State of Texas, 726 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “See Tex. Penal Code §31.18 (b)(1). And the cargo-theft statute’s legislative history—which the majority neglects—says that the statute is aimed not at a group but at “anyone” who commits the proscribed conduct.”
Joe, Daryl, No. PD-0268-21 (Tex. Crim. App. June 22, 2022).
· cites it 2× “” Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(a)(1). A shipment is “moving in commerce if [it] is located at any point between the point of origin and the final point of destination regardless of any temporary stop that is made for the purpose of transshipment or otherwise.”
State v. Trenton Kyle Green, 613 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020).
“00 fine); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.16(d) (increases one level on value ladder); TEX.”
JOE, DARYL v. State of Texas, 726 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
“; TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.18(b)(1)(A)). Appellant argues, based on the Court’s Lang opinion, that, because he was not shown to be part of a cargo theft ring, he has not been shown to have violated the statute.”
Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(a)(1): 6 cases
Joe, Daryl, No. PD-0268-21 (Tex. Crim. App. June 22, 2022).
“TEX. PENAL CODE Ann. § 31.18(a)(1). It provides that the shipment of freight is considered moving in commerce even if it is temporarily stopped for transshipment.”
Daryl Joe v. State, 620 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021).
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.18(a)(1). The fact that the goods were still in the shipping yard is of no consequence because, under section 31.”
Joe, Daryl, No. PD-0268-21 (Tex. Crim. App. June 22, 2022).
“” Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(a)(1). A shipment is “moving in commerce if [it] is located at any point between the point of origin and the final point of destination regardless of any temporary stop that is made for the purpose of transshipment or otherwise.”
Daryl Joe v. State of Texas, No. 10-18-00221-CR (Tex. App.—Waco June 7, 2023).
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.18(a)(1); see also Joe I, 620 S.”
JOE, DARYL v. State of Texas, 726 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
“See Tex. Penal Code §31.18 (b)(1). And the cargo-theft statute’s legislative history—which the majority neglects—says that the statute is aimed not at a group but at “anyone” who commits the proscribed conduct.”
Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(b): 1 case
Daryl Joe v. State of Texas, No. 10-18-00221-CR (Tex. App.—Waco June 7, 2023).
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.18(a)(1); see also Joe I, 620 S.”
Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(b)(1): 4 cases
Daryl Joe v. State of Texas, No. 10-18-00221-CR (Tex. App.—Waco June 7, 2023).
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.18(a)(1); see also Joe I, 620 S.”
Daryl Joe v. State, 620 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021).
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.18(a)(1). The fact that the goods were still in the shipping yard is of no consequence because, under section 31.”
JOE, DARYL v. State of Texas, 726 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
“OPINION This case asks the Court to decide one general question and one more specific question: (1) whether the cargo theft statute, TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.18, is materially different from the organized retail theft statute, TEX.”
Joe, Daryl, No. PD-0268-21 (Tex. Crim. App. June 22, 2022).
“TEX. PENAL CODE Ann. § 31.18(a)(1). It provides that the shipment of freight is considered moving in commerce even if it is temporarily stopped for transshipment.”
Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(b)(1)(A): 3 cases
JOE, DARYL v. State of Texas, 726 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
“OPINION This case asks the Court to decide one general question and one more specific question: (1) whether the cargo theft statute, TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.18, is materially different from the organized retail theft statute, TEX.”
Joe, Daryl, No. PD-0268-21 (Tex. Crim. App. June 22, 2022).
“” Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(a)(1). A shipment is “moving in commerce if [it] is located at any point between the point of origin and the final point of destination regardless of any temporary stop that is made for the purpose of transshipment or otherwise.”
JOE, DARYL v. State of Texas, 726 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
“; TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.18(b)(1)(A)). Appellant argues, based on the Court’s Lang opinion, that, because he was not shown to be part of a cargo theft ring, he has not been shown to have violated the statute.”
Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(b)(1)(a): 1 case
JOE, DARYL v. State of Texas, 726 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
“See Tex. Penal Code §31.18 (b)(1). And the cargo-theft statute’s legislative history—which the majority neglects—says that the statute is aimed not at a group but at “anyone” who commits the proscribed conduct.”
Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(b)(2): 3 cases
Joe, Daryl, No. PD-0268-21 (Tex. Crim. App. June 22, 2022).
“TEX. PENAL CODE Ann. § 31.18(a)(1). It provides that the shipment of freight is considered moving in commerce even if it is temporarily stopped for transshipment.”
Daryl Joe v. State of Texas, No. 10-18-00221-CR (Tex. App.—Waco June 7, 2023).
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.18(a)(1); see also Joe I, 620 S.”
JOE, DARYL v. State of Texas, 726 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025).
“See Tex. Penal Code §31.18 (b)(1). And the cargo-theft statute’s legislative history—which the majority neglects—says that the statute is aimed not at a group but at “anyone” who commits the proscribed conduct.”
Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(c)(2): 1 case
Daryl Joe v. State, 620 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021).
“See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.18(a)(1). The fact that the goods were still in the shipping yard is of no consequence because, under section 31.”
Tex. Penal Code § 31.18(e): 1 case
State v. Trenton Kyle Green, 613 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020).
“00 fine); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.16(d) (increases one level on value ladder); TEX.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.