Kirk Glenn Reiber v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: July 9, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00212-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00210-CR 10-25-00211-CR 10-25-00212-CR

Kirk Glenn Reiber, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 443rd District Court of Ellis County, Texas Senior Judge Cindy Ermatinger, presiding Trial Court Cause Nos. 48372CR, 48373CR, 48374CR

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a jury trial, Kirk Glenn Reiber was convicted of two counts of

unauthorized use of a vehicle and one count of aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon.1 Finding two felony enhancement paragraphs to be true in

each case, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty years in prison on

1 Each charge was indicted in a separate cause number, but all three cases were tried together. each unauthorized use of a motor vehicle conviction and at Life in prison on

the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon conviction. Reiber phrases his

sole issue on appeal as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the jury’s rejection of his insanity defense; however, he also

discusses the standard of review applicable to a factual sufficiency challenge

and argues that acquittal is appropriate pursuant to that standard. We

address both sufficiency challenges and affirm.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW AND RELEVANT LAW

A defendant cannot be convicted of a criminal offense if he is legally

insane at the time of its commission. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.01(a). The

question is whether, “at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result

of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.”

Id. In the context of an insanity defense, the term “wrong” refers to a

defendant’s understanding of the illegality of his actions. See Ruffin v. State,

270 S.W.3d 586, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

For legal sufficiency challenges to a jury’s rejection of an affirmative

defense, we first search the record for any evidence favorable to the jury’s

finding, disregarding all contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could

not disregard it. Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

If no evidence supports the finding, we then determine whether the contrary

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 2 proposition was established as a matter of law. Id. at 669-70. A defendant is

entitled to an acquittal only if the evidence conclusively establishes the

affirmative defense and no reasonable factfinder was free to think otherwise.

Id. at 670.

For factual sufficiency challenges to the jury’s rejection of an affirmative

defense, we view the evidence in a neutral light, but we “may not usurp the

function of the jury by substituting [our] judgment in place of the jury’s

assessment of the weight and credibility of the witnesses’ testimony.” Id. at

671. We may sustain a defendant’s claim of factual insufficiency only if the

verdict is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust,

conscious-shocking, or clearly biased. Id.

EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL

The State’s first witness at trial was the owner of the 24-Hour Mobile

Truck & Trailer Repair shop. The owner testified that on February 9, 2022,

Reiber entered the shop and asked the owner to repair a flat tire on his bicycle.

The owner informed Reiber that he did not fix bicycles and had no way of

repairing the tire. Reiber left the shop, but he returned approximately thirty

minutes later “demanding” that the owner fix the bicycle tire. The owner told

Reiber to leave, and Reiber complied. Later that evening, when the owner

walked out of the shop, he found that his service truck was missing. He also

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 3 observed a bicycle that was left on the property. The owner reported the theft

of the service truck to the police department.

The next day, a customer brought a large car hauling trailer to the shop

for repair. In order for the customer to back the trailer onto the property, the

owner and his son had to stop traffic on the service road. The owner’s son

informed him that the stolen service truck was driving toward them on the

service road. The owner confronted Reiber, who was driving, about taking the

truck. The owner said Reiber “laughed, snickered” at him before complying

with his demand to exit the truck. Reiber asked for his bicycle, which had

already been removed from the property by the police. As the owner moved

the stolen service truck from the service road into the parking lot, he observed

Reiber walking toward the customer’s car hauling trailer. The owner told his

son to call the police.

The owner testified that after he pulled his service truck into the parking

lot, he heard “commotion and arguing” and observed Reiber inside of the

customer’s truck. His son was standing on the truck’s running boards with the

door open, fighting with Reiber. His wife was standing nearby. The owner

described hearing the tires squeal and observing the truck move backward at

a high rate of speed when his wife was hit by the open car door and dragged

for several feet down the street. He testified that he ran to the truck and a

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 4 struggle ensued, with the participants starting and stopping the truck and

shifting it in and out of gear. The owner eventually restrained Reiber and kept

him there until police arrived.

The State’s second witness was the shop owner’s wife. She testified that

the day after the service truck was stolen, she called 9-1-1 because the person

who stole the truck “was back and trying to steal another one.” She observed

Reiber sitting in the driver’s seat of the customer’s car hauler and testified that

her son was fighting with Reiber to keep him from getting the truck in gear

while Reiber was “just laughing.” She described being hit and dragged by the

door of the truck, which caused her to sustain a concussion and a labrum tear

in her hip.

The State’s third witness was the customer who brought in the car

hauler for repair. The customer testified that Reiber walked up to his truck

and told him that he worked for the shop. He described Reiber as wearing a

“service shirt” that made him appear as if he worked for a repair shop. The

customer exited the truck, and Reiber, claiming he would back the trailer into

the property, got inside the truck. The customer then observed the owner’s son

waving at him and saying Reiber did not work for the shop. The customer told

Reiber to exit the truck, and Reiber refused. The customer testified that after

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 5 Reiber learned that 9-1-1 was being called, he put the truck in reverse and

“floored it.”

The State next called the owner’s son. As to the initial interaction

between his father and Reiber, he testified to substantially the same facts as

his father. He described Reiber as “laughing at us.” As to his interaction with

Reiber in the customer’s truck, he explained that he was trying to turn the

vehicle off while Reiber was trying to turn it on and put it in gear. Reiber

eventually “jerked it down into reverse” and “floored” it. The owner’s son said

his mother was dragged twenty to thirty yards before he was able to stop the

truck. He described Reiber continuing to fight to get the truck back into gear

before his father was able to restrain him. The owner’s son also testified to the

condition of the stolen service truck upon its return. He explained that it “looks

like somebody tried to pry the back doors open.”

The State’s final witness in its case-in-chief was one of the responding

officers to the scene. He testified that he removed Reiber from the customer’s

truck and placed him in handcuffs. Though Reiber indicated that he did not

want to speak about the incident, he stated that he was there to retrieve his

bicycle. When asked if he was ever concerned for Reiber’s mental health at the

scene, the officer responded, “Not once.” He testified that Reiber never seemed

confused, and characterized his attitude as sarcastic and nonchalant.

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 6 The defense called Reiber’s brother as its first witness. The brother

testified that Reiber sustained a head injury from a serious car accident in

2016. Approximately one year later, the brother started noticing that Reiber

was becoming paranoid and delusional. The brother testified that these

symptoms escalated a few months prior to the underlying incident. About one

month before the incident, Reiber was admitted to the hospital on two separate

occasions, once for twenty-four hours because he was not “in his right mind”

and once on a seventy-two-hour mental health hold. The week before the

incident, the brother again sought help for Reiber’s mental health; however,

after speaking with a doctor, Reiber was released from the hospital. The

brother also testified that in Reiber’s phone calls from the jail, he seemed

confused about why he was there. Reiber told the brother that someone at the

shop started the service truck and left it running, which made him believe he

could use it to go buy parts to fix his bicycle. Reiber said he drove the truck to

Walmart and purchased a new tube, bicycle tire, and air pump.

The defense also called an expert psychologist who assessed Reiber for

both competency and insanity in November of 2023. The expert witness

testified that she reviewed approximately fourteen or fifteen pages of medical

records from the jail, informally spoke with some of the jail medical staff, and

interviewed Reiber. She explained that the jail medical records show that

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 7 Reiber was placed on an anti-psychotic medication after a few months in

custody, which was discontinued in the following year. Reiber told the expert

that someone at the shop gave him the keys to the vehicle so that he could go

purchase supplies to fix his bicycle. He claimed that he went to Walmart,

purchased a patch and air pump, and returned the truck to the shop. He

further claimed that while he was working on his bicycle, one of the employees

told him that another vehicle needed to be backed up, so he offered to help.

Reiber told the expert that he was confused when people started threatening

to call police and fighting with him to get him out of the truck. The expert

diagnosed Reiber with unspecified depressive disorder with psychotic features

and cannabis use disorder, severe. Ultimately, she concluded that Reiber was

competent to stand trial; however, he did not understand his actions were

wrong at the time of the offense as a result of his mental health diagnosis and

was legally insane at the time of the offense.

In rebuttal, the State called the law enforcement officer who searched

Reiber’s backpack incident to arrest. The officer testified that he did not locate

any type of tire repair kit or receipt from Walmart in the backpack.

ANALYSIS

Reiber emphasizes on appeal that the State did not present any evidence

to rebut his evidence of insanity. The State, however, was not required to do

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 8 so.2 Dashield v. State, 110 S.W.3d 111, 115 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2003, pet. ref’d). Because insanity is an affirmative defense, the defendant

bears both the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion. See TEX. PENAL

CODE ANN. §§ 2.04(d), 8.01. The defendant must prove insanity by a

preponderance of the evidence, and the State is under no obligation to present

any direct rebuttal evidence. See Graham v. State, 566 S.W.2d 941, 950 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978).

Furthermore, the issue of insanity is not a purely medical question; it

invokes legal and ethical considerations that only the jury can resolve. Bigby

v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, 877-78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Thus, expert medical

testimony, even if uncontradicted, does not establish a defendant’s insanity as

a matter of law. Id. A medical expert’s opinion that a defendant did not know

his conduct was wrong does not bind the jury. Dashield, 110 S.W.3d at 115.

The jury may reject such expert opinion testimony in whole or in part, weigh

it against lay testimony and circumstantial evidence, and determine for itself

whether the defendant satisfied the legal standard for insanity. See id.

As to Reiber’s legal insufficiency claim, our first step is to look for more

than a scintilla of evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of his insanity

2 There exists an exception to this general rule when the defendant has previously been adjudicated

insane and the adjudication has not been vacated. Riley v. State, 830 S.W.2d 584, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Neither party contends, and the record does not reflect, that this exception applies in this case.

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 9 defense. Matlock, 392 S.W.3d at 669. We find that there is at least some

evidence in the record that reasonably supports a finding that Reiber was

aware that his conduct was illegal at the time of the offenses. For example,

testimony that Reiber attempted to flee when he learned that law enforcement

was contacted may indicate knowledge of illegal conduct. See Graham, 566

S.W.2d at 951. Additionally, the evidence that it appeared that Reiber “tried

to pry the back doors [of the service truck] open” reasonably suggests that

Reiber was aware he did not have permission to use the service truck. We

overrule Reiber’s legal sufficiency challenge.

As to Reiber’s factual sufficiency claim, we find that the verdict is not so

much against the great weight of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. In

addition to the aforementioned evidence, the jury also reasonably could have

determined that Reiber’s impersonation of a shop worker was an intentionally

deceitful ploy to gain access to the car hauler, not a result of confusion or

delusion due to his mental defect. As the State argues, the jury also could have

credited the testimony of the law enforcement officer “who dealt with [Reiber]

and saw his demeanor and evaluated his actions on scene,” over the defense

expert’s testimony who did not evaluate Reiber until well over a year later. We

overrule Reiber’s factual sufficiency challenge.

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 10 Conclusion

Having overruled Reiber’s sole issue in each appeal, we affirm the trial

court’s judgments.

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 9, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do not publish CRPM

Kirk Glenn Reiber v. The State of Texas Page 11