Elements to Evidence
Elements to Evidence
A computational offense schema maps each required prong to admissible evidence, contrary evidence, burdens, defenses, and unknowns.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Scope and honesty note
Jurisdiction: Texas statutory anchors with United States and Model Penal Code doctrine explained comparatively; as of 2026-08-28; criminal statutes, defenses, charging, burdens, and precedent vary; synthetic facts are classroom inputs; not legal advice. Render structure, refuse unsupported guilt or defense conclusions, cite, abstain, and hand off.
See the essential structure first
Start with this deliberately incomplete structure, then use the pinned authorities, worked application, exceptions, and handoff below. This deliberately incomplete preview has 6 nodes; exceptions and legal consequences remain in the sourced prose below.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Begin with criminal-law doctrine
An offense model can make legal structure and evidentiary provenance checkable without adjudicating the case. The schema stores the exact source version and decomposes each charged offense into conduct, circumstances, result, culpability, causation, concurrence, grading, party liability, and defenses. Evidence objects link to propositions and retain provenance, foundation, limits, conflicts, and contrary material. A missing edge identifies a review gap, not innocence or guilt; a populated edge does not establish admissibility, credibility, sufficiency, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Burden for every element
The pinned burden provision requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for every offense element and preserves the presumption of innocence. Verbatim statutory text: “Tex. PE Code Sec. 2.01. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.” Source: Tex. Penal Code § 2.01; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/penal/chapter_2/section_2_01/tex_pe_2_01_3c379a28949b/tex_pe_code_sec_2_01_proof_beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_all_per_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Conduct prong
The conduct provision supplies voluntary-act, possession, and qualifying-omission fields. Verbatim statutory text: “Tex. Penal Code Sec. 6.01. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION. (a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession. (b) Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control. (c) A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law as defined by Section 1.07 provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act.” Source: Tex. Penal Code § 6.01; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/penal/chapter_6/section_6_01/tex_pe_6_01_a9a3c00508cd/tex_penal_code_sec_6_01_requirement_of_voluntary_act_or_omis_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Culpability prong
The culpability provision supplies element-sensitive mental-state definitions. Verbatim statutory text: “Tex. Penal Code Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. (b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. (d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.” Source: Tex. Penal Code § 6.03; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/penal/chapter_6/section_6_03/tex_pe_6_03_c285c041cea9/tex_penal_code_sec_6_03_definitions_of_culpable_mental_state_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Causation prong
The causation provision supplies but-for, concurrent-cause, and result-variance fields. Verbatim statutory text: “Tex. Penal Code Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS. (a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient. (b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed; or (2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.” Source: Tex. Penal Code § 6.04; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/penal/chapter_6/section_6_04/tex_pe_6_04_b2ccd23f292a/tex_penal_code_sec_6_04_causation_conduct_and_results_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Party-liability branch
The party-liability provision supplies distinct responsibility routes when another person's conduct is alleged. Verbatim statutory text: “Tex. Penal Code Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense; (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense. (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy. In this subsection, "conspiracy" means an agreement between two or more persons to commit a felony.” Source: Tex. Penal Code § 7.02; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/penal/chapter_7/section_7_02/tex_pe_7_02_7d70d5e5e61f/tex_penal_code_sec_7_02_criminal_responsibility_for_conduct_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Pin the synthetic facts
A synthetic theft-by-assistance packet contains a charging record, access event, camera segment, ownership record, messages, inventory event, interview, and contrary authorization record, each with source and quality metadata.
Work the element application
The trace loads the enacted offense and party-liability path, creates one row per material element, and maps each evidence item only to propositions it could support or contradict. Voluntary conduct, intent to deprive, intent to promote or assist, assistance, ownership, consent, and burden remain separate. The checker flags missing source, conflict, or unmapped element and then hands the record to human legal review without a verdict.
Read the populated offense record
The capstone table contains offense source, effective date, element identifier, element kind, statutory text pointer, governing definition, burden, evidence identifier, proposition, support or contradiction, provenance, foundation, admissibility unknown, credibility unknown, defense, gap flag, and reviewer note. The record contains 17 populated rows.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Read the complete record
The complete record keeps sources, stated facts, and questions for review separate. Pinned sources: Verbatim snapshot authority. Tex. Penal Code § 2.01: Burden for every element. Tex. Penal Code § 6.01: Conduct prong. Tex. Penal Code § 6.03: Culpability prong. Tex. Penal Code § 6.04: Causation prong. Tex. Penal Code § 7.02: Party-liability branch. Synthetic facts: Classroom facts only. Charge: Synthetic information alleges intentional theft by assistance from a warehouse. Evidence set: Access log, camera segment, ownership record, messages, inventory event, interview, and defense authorization record. Quality fields: Source, collector, timestamp, scope, authentication pointer, admissibility status, conflict, and missing item. Element trace: Questions, evidence pointers, and bounded comparisons. Schema: Offense source and version, actor, conduct, circumstance, result, culpability, causation, concurrence, grading. Evidence edges: Each item maps to one or more propositions with support, contradiction, foundation, limits, and provenance. Party branch: Object offense, intent to promote or assist, specified conduct, and alternate party routes. Defense branch: Element negation, justification, excuse, statutory defense, burden, rebuttal, unresolved facts. Output boundary: Completeness and traceability checks only; no truth, credibility, guilt, charging, plea, or sentence recommendation.
Narrow summary
Use computation to audit element coverage and evidence provenance, never to replace legal interpretation, admissibility rulings, credibility judgments, or the factfinder.