See T EX . H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 4 81

. 11 2 (V ern on 20 03 ). 1 

### NUM BER 13-05- 715- CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I -E D I N B U R G
JA IM E VIL LA RR EA L LOP EZ , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee. On ap pe al f rom th e 2 63rd D istrict Co urt of H arris C ou nty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza

Opin ion b y

Ju stice Ya ñe z A j ur y found appel lan t, Jai me Vi ll ar re al Lopez , g uil ty of poss e ss ion w it h i ntentto deliver cocaine w eighing at l east 400 gram s. The jury assesse d pu nishm entat 25 years 1 in prison an d a f ine of

$ 250 ,00 0. I n tw o issues, Lop ez argues tha t the e v iden ce is leg allyLop ez ’ s app eal was t r ansf er r ed t o t hi s C our t f r om t he Four t eent h Cour t of Appeal s. 2 2 an d factu al l y

i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt hi s c on v i cti on . W e affi r m. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND Serg eant Oscar

Or teg on, s uper

v is or of the H oust on Pol ic e D epar tment’ s Targ et Narcot icEnforc ement Team ( “TN ET”) , recei v ed i ntel li g ence re g ardin g an i ndi v idu al named Refug io Cos io. D eputy Gar y D ear mon was a member of TNET and w as employed by t he Har ri s C ounty

Sher iff’s D epar

tment (“ the H CS D” ). S gt. Or teg on i nst ru cte d D eputy Dearm on to set up u nde rcov er surv eillance outsid e of Cosio’s residence beca use p ossible narcot ic s t ra ff ic ki ng may hav e been occ ur ri ng there. W hil e c onducti ng su rv eil lan ce on th e morni ng of Jul y

17, 2004, D e puty

D ear mon obs er

v ed C osi o l eav ing hi s resi dence i n a Jeep; he t hen pursued Cos io in an unmar ked v ehi cl e. In t he c ourse of his pursui t, Dep uty De a rm o n o b s e rve d Co s io e n ga ge in t h e fo ll o win g a ct ivi ty. Cos io first drov e to a taq uer ia sta nd, w here he tal ked for 15 to 20 min utes w it h an ind iv idu al dr iv ing a Li ncol n Nav ig ator ; thi s ind iv idu al w as lat er ide nti fied as Je sus Al v arado. Cos io then drov e to a W alg re ens, w here he g ot ou t of hi s J eep and beg an ta lk ing w it h an uni de n t i fi e d ma l e d r i v i n g a re d t r u c k

. C o s i o t o o k t h e ma n ’ s t r u c k a n d d ro v e i t t o “ the Sta ghill residen ce.” He ente red the residence and re m a ined there for 10 to 20 m inute s. H e th en d rov e th e tr uc kb ac kto th e W al g ree ns and , aft er co nv ers i ng br i efl y

w i th the s am e unid ent if ied m ale, swappe d vehicles again. Cosio th en d rov e the Jeep to the taqueria sta nd and spok e br iefly w it h Al v arado. Cos io subs eq uentl y drov e to a Krog er ’s sh oppi ng cent er , w here he ci rc led the par ki ng l ot a few ti mes, but nev er ex it ed his v ehi cl e. H e the n drove to a McDonald ’s.A c c ord i ng t o S gt. O rt eg on , a “stas h h ou s e” i s a l oc ati on i n w hi c h n arc oti c s are s t ore d un t i l t he yare 3 di ssem i nat ed t o i ndi v i dual buy er s. T est i m onyr ev eal ed t hat atsom e po i nt aft er Lo pe z ' s ar r est , aut hor i t i es ent er ed t he St aghi l l r esi dence and uncov er ed d r ug p ar apher nal i a, whi ch i ncl uded l edger s, m oneycoun t er s, ru b b e r b a n d s , a n d F o o d S a v e r v a c u u m s e a l b a g s . 3 Upon Cosio’s arriv al at the McDonald’s, Lo pez ex ited th e McDon a ld ’s and spoke
w it h Cos io in the par ki ng lot for fiv e to 15 minut es. Dep uty Dea rmon tes ti fied that, upon obser v ing Cos io and Lopez as they conv ersed, it appeared to him as if theybo th kn ew each o th e r and t hat t hei r conv ersat ion was frie ndl y . W hen t he c onv ersat ion co ncl uded, C o s i o d ro v e a w a y

i n a M i t s u b i shi L a n c e r . D e p u ty D e a r mo n fo l l o w e d C o s i o w h e n h e l e ft the McDonald’s, bu t soon decide d to ab and on the e f fort beca use he feare d Cosio would det ect his prese nce. He believ ed, howev er, tha t Co sio w as driv ing to the Sta ghill re si dence ; the re si dence w as one to two mil es from the Mc Don ald ’s and a u th o riti es suspe cted thati twa s a stash h ouse . Deputy D earm on retu rned to the McDonald’s 3 becau se he bel iev ed C osi o woul d al so re tur n the re. A s h e wait ed for Cos io to retur n, Depu ty Dearm on o bserved Lop ez sitting insid e the McDon ald’s w ith an oth er indivi dua l; this ind iv idu al w as lat er

i denti fied as Ja v ier

R uiz , Lop ez ’s father-i n- law

. After bei ng g one approx imat ely

30 t o 45 minut es, C osi o retur ned t o the M cD onal d’s

. Cos io, Lopez , and Ruizthen met in the parking lot w here the y brief ly conversed. Cosio then drove away in the J eep and Lopezand Rui zdrov e away i n the Lanc er , w hic h the y co -o w ned. Accordin g to Depu ty Dearm on, Lop ez and Ruiz ’s ex chan ge of v ehicles wi th Cosio
w as an odd actfo r la w-ab idi ng ci ti z ens, but common c onduct for dr ug traff ic kers. Sg t. Ortegon pro v ided the jury w ith the followi ng explanat ion as to w hy drug traf f ickers sw itch
v ehicles: Veh icle sw itch is, f irst and forem ost, it's a collate ral where one subject w il l lea v e hi s v ehi cl e i n as surance to t he ot her su bje ct that he's g oin g to4

re tur n w it h hi s v ehi cl e. Then onc e the y

sw it ch v ehi cl es, one is taken of f and it' s loade d w it h the v ar iou s narcot ic s. And then it 's retur ned bac k, and t hen t hey make the sw it ch. W hat t hat d oes is , one , i t as sures that he' s g oin g to come b ack w it h his v ehi cl e. And , tw o, it preven t s t he d isclosure of the loca tion where the y 're g etti ng the narcot ic s from, w here i t' s b ein g st ored, w here i t' s b ein g hous ed unti l it 's di ss eminat ed. So—a nd tha t in and o f

itse lf p rotect s the ot her side o f the subject so that they 're notgett ing robbed. So that somebody isn' t there to rob th em and ste al thei r narcot ic s o r to s teal thei r money thatthey

hav e. Accordin g to his test imo ny, Sg t. Ortegon b elieved tha t Lop ez sw itched v ehicles w ith Cosio for th e abov e reason s. H is tes ti mony was suppl emented by D eputy D ear mon, w ho, o n directexaminat ion , ex pla ine d the role he b eli ev ed Lope z p layed i n the pur por ted d ru g transacti on: Q: Okay. And, so, would y ou a gree wi th m e tha t Lop ez and Ruizare proba bly a l ittl e bi t l ow er

i n the [dr ug ] org ani z ati on th an C osi o? A: I would agree w ith tha t, y es. Q: Base d on w hat? A: Base d on w hat I actual ly sa w out there. Obv iou sly, t h e re w as no money ex chang ed th at we k new of. W e di dn'tse e i t. But based on my

ex per ien ce, many

ti mes indi v idu alsare t ask ed w it h jus t pi ck ing up a l oad of i ll eg al narcot ic s a nd del iv er ing i t to anot her loc ati on. And for lac k of a bette r word, many ti mes it 's j ustreferred to in the d ru g bus ine ss as mul es. They were re sp o nsi ble for—for mov ing i t from one l ocat ion to another l ocat ion

. Dep uty D ear mon di d not follo w Cos io out of t he M cD onal d’s , butbeg an to pursue L o p e z a n d Ru iz, in s t e a d

. W h il e fo ll o win g t h e m , D e p u ty D e a rm o n c o n t a ct e d De p u ty S t e ve5

Shaddox of the H CS D. H e di re cte d D eputy Shadd ox , w ho was dr iv ing a pa trol v ehi cl e, t o the Lan cer’s location and in structe d him t o look for any ty pe o f traf f ic inf raction thatwould prov ide probabl e c ause to sto p the Lance r. Dep uty Shaddox st opped t he Lanc er

after i ts dr iv er commi tted an unsafe lan e chang e. He approache d the Lance r’ s pass enger s id e, w here he obser

v ed Rui zsitt ing in the driv er ’s seat and Lopezi n the frontpas seng er se at. Upon app roach ing th e v ehicle, De put y S had dox n oticed t hatLop ez’s han ds an d arm s were “t re mbli ng .” Acc ordin g to Dep uty Shaddox , Lopez“appeared to be up setby [hi s] presenc e” and “appe ared to be o v erly n erv ous. ” Depu ty Sha ddo x asked Ruizfor his driv er’s license and i nsurance, but Rui zhad nei ther . A s a r e su lt, R uizwas ar re ste d and pla ced in the backse at of

the pa trol v ehicle. Deputy Shadd ox subse quently asked Lopez fo r his driv er’s license a nd insu rance , butLop ez had n eithe r. Depu ty Sha ddo x then asked if th ere w ere anyw ea p o n s o r

n a rc o t i c s i n t h e L a n c e r ; L o p e zs t a t e d t h a tt h e re w e re n o n e . L o p e za nd Ru iz we re b o t h a s k e d if t h e y wo u ld c o n s e n t t o t h e L a n c e r b e in g s e a rc h e d a n d b o t h ga ve th e ir co n se n t o ra lly an d in w rit in g. The search w as condu cte d by Dep uty W all ace W y att of t he H CS D, w ho ar ri v ed on the s cene at t he ti me R uizwas bei ng pla ced in Dep uty Shadd ox ’s patrol v ehi cl e. Pr ior to the s earch, Lopezwas pla ced in the b ackseatof Dep uty W y att’ s p atrol v e h icle. Dep uty W y att searched the drive r and pas seng er co mpart ments, but found nothi ng . He then opened the tr unk and saw tw o larg e duf

fle bags ; upon inspecti on, he concl uded that t he bag s c ontai ned c ocaine

. D eputi es W y att and D ear mon both tes ti fied th at t he c ocai ne em itted a strong odor, which they smelled up on o pen ing the trunk. Dep uty W y att subs eq uentl y

transpo rt ed Lopezto jai l, w here he w as detai ned for further i nv est ig ati o n . W h il e bei ng transpo rt ed to j ail , Lop ezbeg an to sp eak, prompti ng6

Dep uty W y att to t urn o n a n audi o recordin g dev ic e. The ju ry l is tened to t he recorded conv ersat ion and w as prov ide d w it h a t ra nsc ri pt of the recordin g , w hic h c ontai n ed th e fo llo wing: D EP U TYW YATT : Y OU H OT ? LOP EZ: W HO POINT THE FINGER? D EP U TYW YATT : W H AT? LOP EZ: W HO POINT THE FINGER? DEPUT Y W YATT : W HAT DO Y OU MEAN “PUT THE FINGER?”? LOPEZ : SOM EBOD YPOI NT TH E F IN GER DEPUT Y W YATT : LIK E “POINT THE FINGER” W HATDO Y OU MEAN? LO PE Z : N O.

.. SO M EB OD YP U T TH E.

.. .W H OS E TH AT? Dep uty W y att tes ti fied th at, from his pastex per ien ce, Lopez ’s q uest ion —“ W ho poi nt t he f in ger ? ”—m e a n t “who to l d o n m e or who kn e w I was de a lin g th e dru gs, ta kin g th e dru gs somew here and tol d you to st op me.” Lop ez’s f ingerprints w ere no t foun d on th e du f f le bags. An investig ation of the du f f le bag s’ co ntent s rev eal ed th at ea ch bag co ntai ned 2 5 b ric ks of coc ain e, w hic h had a combi ned weig h t of

48.6 ki log ra ms ( approx imat ely 107. 14 poun ds)

. Dep uty D ear mon tes ti fied th at t he w hol esal e v alu e of a k il og ra m of coc aine w as between $13 ,000 and $15,000 ; under thi s esti mate, the w hol esal e v alu e of 48.6 kil og ra ms of

cocai ne w oul d be between $63 0,500 and $729,000. Sg t. Or teg on testi fied th at a ki log ra m of coc ain e had a street v alu e of $100,0 00; u nder thi s e sti mate, the street v alu e of 48.6 kil og ra ms of

co cai ne woul d be $4,860, 000. Lopezdi d notpresenta de fense.A c o s ta v . S ta te , 75 2 S

. W

. 2d 70 6, 70 7 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 19 88 , pe t
. ref’ d). 4M a rtin v . S ta te , 75 3 S

. W

. 2d 38 4, 38 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 88 ). 5L a s s a in t v . S ta te , 79 S

. W

. 3d 73 6, 74 0 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 02 , no pe t
. ). 6 P o in d e x te r v . S ta te , 1 5 3 S .W .3 d 4 0 2 , 4 0 5 - 0 6 ( T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) . U n til r e c e n tly, th is p r in c ip le 7 was r ef er r ed t o as t he “ aff i r m at i v e l i nks r ul e, ” t er m i nol ogyt hat has been aband oned i n f av orof si m pl yr ef er r i ng to th e e v i d e n ti a ry “li n k s ” b e tw e e n th e a c c u s e d a n d th e c o n tra b a n d

. S e e E v a n s v . S ta te , 202 S. W

. 3d 1 58, 162 n .9 ( T e x . C rim

. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (n o ti n g “‘a ff i rm a ti v e ’ a d d s n o th i n g to th e p l a i n m e a n i n g o f ‘ l i n k ’ ” a n d c o u rt w ill he nc efo rt h “us e o nl y‘ l i nk ’ ”)

.

G ra n t v . S ta te , 98 9 S

. W

. 2d 42 8, 43 3 (T ex . A pp . –H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t
. ] 19 99 , no pe t
. ). 8 Poindexter , 153 S. W

. 3d a t 406

. 9 7 II. A PPLI C A B LE L AW In case s in v olvi ng unlawfu l possessio n of a contro lled sub stan ce, th e Sta te m ust prove that th e accu sed int ent iona lly o r kno w ingly

e x ercised actu al care, custo dy, control, or manag ement ov er the subs tanc e and that the a cc used knew the matter

pos ses sed w as c o n t ra b a n d

. Po s s e s s io n o f co n t ra b a n d n e e d n o tb e e xc lu s ive a n d e vid e n c e wh ic h sh o ws 4 that an ac cus ed j oin tl y

pos ses sed the c ontraband w it h anot her i s s uff ic ien t. W hether the 5 theor y of prosec uti on i s s ole or j oin t pos ses si on, t he ev ide nce must li nk the a cc used to t he cont raba nd in such a ma nne r and to such an exten t tha t a reaso nab le inferen ce ma y arise that the a cc used knew of the c ontraband’ s e x is tenc e and that he had poss ess ion of it

. 6 The ev ide nce, be i t di re ct or ci rc umstan ti al, mustes tabl is h, t o the req uis it e l ev el of confide nce, thatthe acc used’ s connecti on w it h the drug w as more than jus t fort uit ous; the 7
ev ide nce must g enerate more tha n a strong suspi ci on or mere probabi li ty

of g uil t. C our

ts 8
re q uire the Sta te t o s ati sfythi s e v ide nti ar y burden i n order

to p ro te ctthe inn ocent bysta nder

—a re lat iv e, frie nd, or ev en strang er to the act ual poss ess or —from con vi cti on me rel y be c au s e of hi s for tu i to us prox i mi ty to s om eo ne el s e’ s dr ug s . Ac c ordi ng l y , me re 9S e e , e .g ., H a rv e y v . S ta te , 48 7 S

. W

. 2d 75 , 77 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 72 ). 10 A lle n v . S ta te , N o. 03 -04 -00 55 7-C R , 20 08 T ex . A pp . LE X I S 17 09 , at *24 (T ex . A pp . –A us t i n M ar. 11 7, 20 08 , no pe t
. h. ).

Lassa int , 79 S. W

. 3d a t 740

. 12 I d. 13 8 presenc e i n the v ic ini ty of c ontraband that is bei ng us ed or pos ses sed by

othe rsdoes not, by i tse lf, s uppor

t a findi ng thatthe acc used is a j oin t poss ess or or a par ty to the o ffense. 10 Al ong the same l ine , mere pres ence does not make an accus ed a par ty to joi nt po ss ess ion ev en i f the ac cus ed k nows o f the ex is tenc e of the con tr aband a nd has kn ow led g e of an offense. 11 W hen an acc used is not in ex cl usi v e pos ses si on of the pla ce w here the con traband is found, i t cannot be c oncl uded or presumed that the a cc used had k now led g e of or co ntrol ov e r t h e c o n t ra b a n d u n l e s s t h e re a re a d d i t i o n a l i n d e p e n d e n tfa ct s a n d c i rc u ms t a n c es conne cti ng or

l in kin g t he ac cus ed to the know ing pos ses si on of the cont ra band. 12 Si mil ar ly , w hen t he c ontraband i s n ot found on the acc used’s p e rso n o r iti s n ot i n the exclusive po s s e s s io n o f t h e a c c u s e d , a d d it io n a l i n d e p e n d e n tfa ct s a n d ci rcu mst ance s must li nk the a cc used to t he k now ing pos ses si on of the cont ra band. 13 Sev eral factors may

help t o e stabli sh a l ink between t he ac cus ed and the cont raba nd, including, am ong oth ers, the followi ng: ( 1) w het her the co n traba nd was in pla in v iew

or recov ered from a n enc los ed pl ace; ( 2) the acc used wa s th e o w ner of the premis es or

had the ri g ht to posses s the plac e w here the contraband w as found, or was the o w ner

or dr iv er of the automobi le in w hic h the co ntraband was found; ( 3) the acc used
w as foun d w ith a la rg e a m o u n tof cash; (4) the contrab and was con v enie ntly accessib leId

. at 740 - 41. 14 Allen , 200 8 T ex. App. LEX I S 1709, at* 29 n

. 13. 15See id. 16 Evans , 2 0 2 S .W .3 d a t 1 6 6 ; Lassai nt , 79 S. W

. 3d a t 741

. 17 9 to t he ac cus ed, o r found on th e s ame si de of the v ehi cl e as the acc used w as si tti ng ; ( 5) the cont ra band was found in cl ose prox imi ty to the acc used; ( 6) a s trong resi dual odor of the cont ra band was present ; ( 7) the acc used poss ess ed ot her co ntraband w hen ar re ste d; ( 8) parapher nal ia to us e the cont ra band w as in v iew , or found on t he ac cus ed; ( 9) the physi cal condi ti on of

the acc used in dic ated rec ent c onsumpt ion of the c ontraband i n q uest ion ; ( 10) condu ct by

the acc used ind ic ated a consc iou snes s of g uil t; (11 ) the acc used atte mpted t o esc ape or f lee; ( 12) the acc used made furt iv e g est ures; ( 13) the acc used had a spec ial conne cti on to the cont ra band; (1 4) the occ upants of t he premis es g av e co n f li cti ng sta tements aboutrele v ant matters; (1 5) the acc used made i n cri minat ing st atements conne cti ng hi msel f to the cont ra band; (1 6) the q uanti ty of the cont ra band; and ( 17) the accuse d w as ob serv ed in a su spicious a rea un der susp icious circumst ance s. 14 There is no e sta bli shed or set for mula of factors that woul d dict ate a f ind ing of a li nk to s uppor

t a re asona ble i nferenc e of know ing posses si on of contraband. One reason for

15 thi s i s t hat a factor

thatco ntr ibu tes to the s uff ic ien cy of ev ide nce th a t t he ac cus ed poss ess ed co n tr aband i n one cas e, may be o f li ttl e or

no v alu e i n a d ifferent cas e. 16 T hou gh the nu mb er of

facto rs is notas impo rtantas the logical force the facto rs have i n est abl is hin g the ele ments of the offense, i t i s s eld om thatany one factor

w il l hav e the 17 log ic al force suffici ent t o s ust ain a c onv icti on bas ed on cons tr uct iv e pos ses si o n ofAllen , 200 8 T ex. App. LEX I S 1709, at* 29 n

. 13. 18Lassa int , 79 S. W

. 3d a t 741

. 19 R u i z v . S ta te , N o. 01- 06- 00018 - C R , 2006 T ex. A pp. LE X I S 10318 , at * 4 ( T ex. A pp. –H oust on [ 1st 20 D i s t
. ] N ov. 30 , 20 06 , no pe t
. ) ( m em . op . , no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ).

Id

. at * 10. 21 Id

. at * 13 22 10 cont ra band. U lt imat ely , t he q uest ion of w hethe r th e e vi dence i s s uff ic ien t t o l ink the 18
accuse d to th e con traba nd m ust be answered on a ca se-by-case basis. 19 III . L I N K S B E TWE E N L OPEZ A N D THE C OCA I NE In Rui z v. St ate , the First Court of

Appe als rejected a legal and factu al suf f iciency chal len g e rais ed by

Lopez ’s father-i n-la w, J av ier R uiz , w ho was separatel y tr ied and conv icted for

pos ses si ng the coc ain e found i n the Lance r. In findi ng that a li nk between 20 Rui zand the c ocai ne ex is ted, the c our t c onsi der e d t h e amount of the c ocai ne th at was recovered f rom th e trunk, as w ell as the followi ng fa cts and circumsta nces: 21 (1) Co sio talked to [Ruiz] and Lop ez in the McDonald’s pa rking lot, w here the y excha nged som eth ing, and Cosio left McDonald’s drivi ng the La ncer, cons is tent w it h dr ug traff ic ki ng ; ( 2) Lopez and [R uiz] di d notappear to order any fo od while at McDona ld ’s, but see me d on ly to be waiting for Cosio’s re tur n; ( 3)Lopezand [R uiz] met Co sio i n the M cD onal d’spar ki ng l ot w hen Cos io re tur ned, w here the three c onv ersed, they ex chang ed s omething ag ain , and Lopez and [R uiz] g ot int o the Lance r to dr iv e aw ay ; (4 ) [R uiz] and Lopezdi d nothav e the ir l ic e n ses or

v ehi cl e reg is trati on, w hic h i s c ommon w ith dr ug d ea l ers w ho d o no t w an t to b e de te cte d; ( 5)t he c er ti fi ed p ublic documentfrom t he Tex as Dep artment of Transp ortati on re gar d in g the re g is tered ow ners o f the Lanc er sh ow ed that [Rui z ] and Lopezow ned t he c ar tog ether ; and ( 6) co cai ne has a v eryst ro ng odor , ev en i f seal ed, a nd th e odor was immedi atel y

noti ceabl e and ov er

w hel ming to Dep uty

W y att. 22 Unl ik e i n Ruiz , t here i s no testi mony in the i nst ant c ase to es tabl is h tha t ( 1) both Lopezand Rui ztal ked w it h C osi o w hen he ini ti all y ar ri v ed at the Mc Don ald ’s (t est imony es tabl is hedA s s um i ng , argu en do , t ha t t he re w as t es t i m on yt o e s t ab l i s h t he l att er t w o p oi nts, w e w ou l d s t i l l ha ve 23 i m m e n s e d i ff i c u l tya ff o rd i n g a n yw e i g h t t o th i s te s ti m o n y . F i rs t, th e te s ti m o n ya t t ria l e s ta b l i s h e d th a t D e p u ty D e a rm o n fo l l o w e d C o s i o w h e n h e l e ft th e M c D o n a l d ’ s i n th e L a n c e r, th u s l e a v i n g n o l a w e n fo rc e m e n t a g e n ts t o w atch Lo pe z an d R ui z at t he M c D on al d’ s . Lo pe z a nd R ui z re m ai ne d un ob s erve d a t t he M c D on al d’ s for a f ew m i nut es un t i l D eput yD ear m on r et ur ned t o wai t f orC osi o. Based on t hese f act s, i t i s har d t o excl ude t he possi bi l i t yt hat Lop ez and R ui z or der ed food at t he M cD onal d’ s— a f ast - f ood est abl i shm ent
— and consum ed i t pr i ort o Deput yD ear m on’ s r et ur n. Second , t he n ot i on t hat Lopez and R ui z di d not possess t hei rl i censes a n d v e h ic le r e g is tr a tio n to a v o id d e te c tio n is d u b io u s c o n s id e r in g th a t th e y w illin g ly a n d tr u th f u lly p r o v id e d th e ir nam es an d da t es of

bi r t h when gi v i ng wr i t t en co nsentf ort he se ar ch of t hei rv ehi cl e. “ T he t er m ‘ conv eni ent l yaccessi bl e’ m eans t hat t he cont r aband m ust be wi t hi n t he cl ose vi ci ni t yof 24 t he a ccused and easi l y accessible while i

n the ve hicle so as t o sug gest t hat t he a ccused had k nowl edge of t he c on t rab an d an d e x erc i s ed co ntr ol ove r i t
. ” R o b in s o n v . S ta te , 174 S

. W

. 3d 3 20, 326 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). I n th e p re s e n t c a s e , th e c o c a i n e w a s n o t a c c e s s i b l e to L o p e z, w h o w a s s i tti n g i n th e p a s s e n g e r c o m p a rtm e n t.

S e e J e n k in s v . S ta te , 76 S. W

. 3d 709, 717 (T ex. A pp. –C or pus C hr i st i 2002, pet
. re f ’ d) ( f i ndi ng t hat 25 cont r aband f ound i n v ehi cl e’ s t r unk was not i n c l os e pr oxi m i t yt o t he a ccused, who was a f r ont seat pa s s en ge r)

.

“ Fur t i v e” gest ur es ar e gener al l y def i ned as t hose whi ch ar e sur r ept i t i ous, under hande d, ordon e by 26 s te a l th

. W EBST ER ' S C OLL EGI AT E D I C T I O N A R Y 47 4 (10 t h e d., M erri am -W eb s t er, I nc . 19 93 ). 11 that onl y Lopezi nit ial ly

met a nd s p o ke with C osi o) ; ( 2) C osi o made a ny hand- to- hand ex chang es w it h ei ther

Lopez or Rui z ; (3 ) Lopez and Rui z did not appear to order any food
w hil e at the M cD onal d’s ; or ( 4) the failu re of Lopez and Rui z to c ar ry thei r dr iv er ’s l ic enses and v e h ic le regi stration was be havior consisten t w ith drug dea lers w ho wi shed to avoid detecti on. 23 Ma ny of the e vi denti ar

y factors t ra dit ion all y

us ed to es tabl is h a l ink between an acc used and t he c ontraband a re not presenti n thi s c ase: ( 1) Lopezwas not found w it h a larg e amountof cas h; ( 2) the cont ra band was not c onv eni entl y ac ces si ble to Lopez ; ( 3) 24 the c o n t ra b a n d w a s n o t i n c l o s e p ro x i mi ty t o L o p e z ; ( 4 ) L o p e z d i d n o t p re sentothe r 25 cont ra band w hen ar re ste d; ( 5) parapher nal ia to use th e c o n traband w as not i n v iew , or found on Lope z ; ( 6) Lopez ’s physi cal condi ti on did not ind ic ate recentco nsumpt ion of the cont raba nd in questio n; (7) Lop ez did no t atte mp t to esca pe o r flee ; (8) Lope zdid notmake any f urti v e ges tures; (9) Lopezdid not hav e a s peci al conne cti on to the cont ra band; (1 0) 26See La ssaint , 79 S. W

. 3d a t 740 - 41. 27See id. 28S e e M a r v . S ta te , 8 1 4 S .W .2 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 0 ( T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n io 1 9 9 1 , n o p e t. ) ( d is c o u n tin g o ff ic e r ’s 29 t est i m o n yt h a t d r u g s d i s c o v e r e d w i t h i n a v e h i c l e ’ s t r u n k s m e l l e d , b e c a u s e t h e v e h i c l e c o n t a i n e d a p a r t i t i on b e tw e e n th e tru n k a n d p a s s e n g e r c o m p a rtm e n t); s e e a ls o O a k s v . S ta te , 6 4 2 S .W .2 d 1 7 4 , 1 7 7 ( T e x . C r im

. App. 198 2) ( “ T he a ppel l ant was st andi ng e i t hersi x t o ei ght i nches ort wo f eet f r om t he t r ash ca n wher e t he her oi n was found.

. . . T he m aj or i t yof t he Cour t of

Appeal s concl uded t he h er oi n was i n pl ai n v i ew f r om appel l ant ’ s l ocat i on. T hi s i s notsupp or t ed b yt he e v i dence. No one pl aced hi m sel fi n ap pel l ant ’ s posi t i on a nd s ta te d th a t h e c o u l d s e e th e h e ro i n i n th e tra s h c a n fr o m th a t l o c a ti o n .”); Allen , 200 8 T ex. App. LEX I S 1709 at * 38 ( r ecogni z i ng t hat off i cer ’ s t est i m onyt hat he was abl e t o l ocat e cocai ne on t op o fa r ef r i ger at ordi d no t pr ov e t hat t he co cai ne was i n pl ai n v i ew ofapp el l ant , gi v en t hat she was onl yseen i n t he l i v i ng r oom and she w as se ven i nc he s sh ort er t ha n t he offi c er).

S e e R e y e s v . S ta te , 5 7 5 S .W .2 d 3 8 , 4 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . [ P a n e l O p .] 1 9 7 9 ); A rm s tro n g v . S ta te , 30 5 4 2 S .W .2 d 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 6 ); M ar , 814 S. W

. 2d a t 900

.

S e e H u d s o n v . S ta te , 128 S. W

. 3d 3 67, 374 ( T ex. App. –T exar k ana 2004, no pet
. ) (f i ndi ng t r unk of 31 veh i c l e a n e nc l os ed sp ac e). 12 Lop e z a n d Ruizdid notg iv e con f licting state me nts; a nd (11 ) Lope zwas no t obse rv ed in a s uspi ci ous area. 27 W e al so find that two addi ti onal factors— “a st ro ng resi dual odor of cont ra band was present ” a n d “ the c ontraband was in pla in v iew or recov ered from a n enc los ed spac e” —are als o n o t pres ent i n thi s c ase. F irst, we afford no w eig ht t o any tes ti mony 28 relating to the cocaine ’s odor be cause Deput ies W y att a nd Dearm on testif ied tha t the y only sme lled the cocaine once the trun k was open . At no ti me di d ei ther of them t est ify

thatthe odor of the c ocai ne was det e ct a ble w hil e s itti ng i n the Lanc er ’s front -p ass eng er compar tment w it h the doors a nd tr unk cl osed, nor di d either

testi fy thatLopezopened the Lance r’ s t ru nk after Cos io re tur ned t he v ehi cl e. There w as als o no ev ide nce that Lopez 29
re cog niz ed th e s mell of coc ain e. 30 Seco nd, thou gh the coca ine w as foun d in an e nclose d s p ace (i.e., the La ncer’s tr unk) , we b e lie ve that no weig ht s houl d be afforded t o thi s fact

. Thoug h the re are a

31I t i s i n t he St at e’ s ben ef i t t hat we pr esum e t he j ur y m ade t hi s f i ndi ng. I f we pr esum e ot herwi se, t he 32 S ta te ’s th e o r y o fw h a t t r a n s p ir e d a t t h e M c D o n a ld ’s c e a s e s t o m a k e s e n s e , a n d it b e c o m e s im m e n s e ly d iff ic u lt t o un der st and how Lop ez ’ s l oani ng oft he Lancert o Cosi o est abl i shes h i s knowl edge ofdr ug a ct i v i t yand , as a r esul t , t he co cai ne.

See La ssaint , 7 9 S .W .3 d a t 7 4 0 -4 1

. 33 13 number of cas es that hav e treated the factthatco ntraband was found in an enc los ed spac e w it hin a ve h icl e asa l ink between t he ac cus ed and the c ontraband, thes e c ases hav e i nv olv ed i nst ances i n w hic h the durati on of the cont ra band’ s pres ence in the encl osed spac e was unkno w n. In t he instantca se, the Stat e i mpli ci tl y as ked the j ur

y to find th at Cos io pla ced the c ocai ne i n the Lancer ’s trunk duri ng the ti me Lopezwas obser v ed atthe Mc Don ald ’s ; we presume that the j ur y made t hisfindi ng . There wa s n o e v ide nce that 32 Lopezev er

opened the tr unk w hen Cos io re tur ned to the Mc Don ald ’s in the L ancer . Und er thes e c ircums tanc es, the fact th at the coc ain e was found in the tr unk— ev en w hen v iewed in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e v erdi c t
— cann ot po ssibly assist a rationa l fa ct-f inde r in arriv ing at the con clusion that Lope zhad knowl edge of the coca ine’s prese nce in th e trunk. The onl y remaini ng factors l is ted i n L ass ain t th a t app ear to be presentare the follo w ing : (1 ) Lopez w as an ow ner and occ upant of t he v ehi cl e c ontai nin g the cont ra band; (2 ) Lopez ’s conduct(i. e., ner v ousne ss ) in dic ated a consc iou snes s of g uil t; (3)Lopezmade incrimina ting statem ent s conn ecting him self to the cont raba nd; (4) Lope zwas in a v ehicle that cont ain ed a larg e q uanti ty of cont ra band ; a n d ( 5) Lopez , t houg h notobs er v ed i n a suspiciou s place, was ob serv ed u nde r suspicious ci rcumst ance s. W ith regard to th e f irst 33 li ste d factor , we obs er

v e tha t bec ause Lopez and Rui zboth oc cupi ed th e Lanc er w hen t he coc ain e was dis cov ered, the fact that Lopezow ned and oc cupi ed th e Lanc er ca nnot, bySee id. at740

. 34See id. 35Vo d o c h o d s ky

v . S ta te , 15 8 S

. W

. 3d 50 2, 50 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 05 ). 36S o n n ie r v . S ta te , 91 3 S

. W

. 2d 51 1, 51 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 95 ). 37B ro w n v . S ta te , 91 1 S

. W

. 2d 74 4, 74 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 95 ). 38 14 it sel f, per mit a c oncl usi on or pre su m p ti o n t hat h e k new of the c ocai ne’ s p re senc e. 34 Addi ti onal i ndependen t facts and ci rc umstan ces mustex is t i n order to li nk Lopezto the coc ain e. C o n se que n tly , our l eg al and factu al suffici ency rev iew i nv olv es deter mini ng 35
w hether the re maini ng four factors create the addi ti onal i ndependen t facts and ci rc umstan ces nec ess ar y for l ink ing Lopezto the c ocai ne. IV. L EGA L S UF FI CI E NCY A . St and ard o f Rev iew In hi s first is sue, Lopez arg ues that the e v ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent to prov e tha t he know ing ly ex erci sed care, c ust ody , c ontrol, or manag ement of the co cai ne, or thathe k now ing ly

pos ses sed the c ocai ne. W hen t here i s a c h a lle ng e to the l eg al suffici ency

of the e v ide nce to sus tai n a cr imi nal conv icti on, we c onsi der w hether a rati onal trier of fact cou ld have foun d the e ssent ial e lem ent s o f t he of fense b eyond a reaso nab le dou bt. The “reaso nab l e al te r na ti ve hy po th esis” analysis for rev iew ing the legal suf f iciency 36 of circumsta ntial evidence has bee n aba ndo ned

. The conse quence of this “is tha t each 37 defend antmust still be af f irmatively linked w ith the drugs he allegedly posse ssed, but th is link nee d no longer be so strong tha t it ex clude s eve ry o the r outsta ndin g reaso nab le hy pothes is ex ceptthe defendant’ s g uil t.” 38 In ad dress ing a l eg al suffici ency ch all eng e, we rev iew

al l the e v ide nce in the l ig htS e e R o lle rs o n v . S ta te , 22 7 S

. W

. 3d 71 8, 72 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 07 ). 39H o o p e r v . S ta te , 21 4 S

. W

. 3d 9, 13 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 07 ). 40 S e e C o n n e r v . S ta te , 67 S

. W

. 3d 19 2, 19 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 01 ). 41 15 most fav orabl e to the v erdict and as sume t hat t h e t ri er of fact resol v ed c onfli ctsi n the tes ti m o n y, w eig hed t he ev ide nce, and drew reason abl e i nferenc es in a manner that supp orts the v erdict. It is not ne cessary that every fact po int directly and indep end ent ly 39 to the defendant' s g uil t, but it is enough if the conc lus ion is w ar ra nted by the combi ned and cumul ati v e forc e of al l the i n cri m in ati ng ci rc umstan ces . W e mustco nsi der al l the 40 evidence, rig htly or w rongly adm itted , tha t the trier of fact w as pe rmitte d to con sider. 41

B. Discuss ion In orde r to estab lish thatLop ez had knowl edge of the cocain e foun d in the Lan cer, the State presen ted t h e j u ry wi th th e the orythatboth Lop ez and Cosio knowing ly par ti ci pated in a dr ug tra n sa ct io n at the M cD onal d’s

. This theo ry was predi cat ed on the jur y i nferr ing thatC osi o pl aced the c ocai ne i n the tr unk w hil e Lopezremaine d at the Mc Don ald ’s

. W e bel iev e the jur y could hav e reason abl y made t hisi nferenc e upon hear ing that (1 ) TNET had int ell ig ence on C osi o tha t t ied hi m to poss ibl e dr ug traff ic ki ng ; ( 2) pr ior to hi s i nit ial ar ri v al at the Mc Don ald ’s , Cos io was obser v ed enga g ing in suspi ci ous act iv ity that w as cons is tent w it h dr ug traff ic ki ng behav ior ; ( 3) pr ior to h is in it ial ar ri v al at t he Mc Don ald ’s , C osi o v is it ed th e St ag hil l re si denc e , a s uspected s tas h hous e w here dr ug parapher nal ia w as lat er di sc ov ered; ( 4) C osi o’sact of ar ri v ing at the M cD onal d’si n the Jeep and dep arting in the Lan cer ref lected the sort of v ehicle sw itching tha t drug traf f ickers eng ag e i n for the p ur pose of tra nsferr ing co ntra band fro m one pa rty to another ; and ( 5) Dep uty D ear mon tes ti fied th at he st ro ng ly bel iev ed th at Cos io had dri v en the Lancer to theSee H ooper, 214 S. W

. 3d a t 16 ( st at i ng t hat an i nf er ence i s a concl usi on r eached byconsi der i ng 42 ot herf act s a nd d ed uc i ng a l ogi cal conse quence f r om t hem , and not i ng t hat j ur i es ar e pe r m i t t ed t o dr aw m ul t i pl e rea s on ab l e i nfe ren c es fr om ei t he r di rec t or ci rcu m s t an t i al evi de nc e).

See Uni t ed Stat es v. D el Agui la- R eyes , 7 2 2 F .2 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 7 (5 th C i r. 1 9 8 3 ); M e n c h a c a v . S ta te , 901 43 S .W .2 d 6 4 0 , 6 5 2 (T e x . A p p .– E l P a s o 1 9 9 5 , p e t. re f’d ); C a s te lla n o v . S ta te , 810 S. W

. 2d 8 00, 806 ( T ex. A pp . –A us t i n 1 99 1, no pe t
. ).

S e e J a m e s v . S ta te , N o. 01- 06- 00496 - C R , 2008 T ex. A pp. LE X I S 545, at* 10 ( T ex. App. –H oust on 44 [ 1st D i st
. ] Jan. 24, 200 8, no pet
. h. ) ( r ecogni z i ng tha t i ti s wi t hi n t he j ur y ’ s pr ov i nce t o con cl ude t hat t he a c c u s e d ’ s n e rv o u s n e s s w a s d u e to a c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f g u i l t, ra th e r th a n s o m e th i n g e l s e ); but cf

. Lassa int , 79 S. W

. 3d a t 744 ( decl i ni ng t o f i nd, i n t he co ur se of a l egal suff i ci encyr ev i ew, t hat t he a ccused— a pa ssenger i n a v ehi cl e st opped byl aw enf or cem ent
— dem onst r at ed a consci ousness of gui l t t hr ough hi s nerv ousness, be c au s e t he evi de nc e e s t ab l i s he d t ha t t he ac c us ed w as al s o c oo pe rat i ve). 16 Sta ghill residen ce, w hich w as on ly one to tw o miles a w ay f rom th e McDonald ’s. 42 T he St ate ’s theo ry also required the jury to i nfer tha t Lop ez knowingl y allowed Cosio to t emporar il y

pos ses s t he Lanc er

for t he purpos e of

placi ng cocai ne w it hin it. W hen t he evidence is const rued in a lig ht m ost favorable to th e v erdict, w e dee m tha t the ju ry could hav e reason abl y

made s uch an i nferenc e. Beca use Lopezco -o w ned t he Lanc er and w as the only owner w ho co nversed w ith Cosio be fore he took po ssession o f t he v ehicle, the jury could have conclud ed th at Cosio ha d to acquire Lo pez’s conse nt to leave the McDonald ’s in the L ancer . The ju ry co uld hav e the n det er mined that the o nly pl ausi ble reason Lopez
woul d hav e al lowed C osi o to tak e s ole pos ses si on of the L ancer , w hen C osi o’sJe ep appeared operabl e, was to en g ag e i n a d ru g transacti on. This was the o nly ex pla nati on the j ur y was prov ide d. Fur

ther more, the jur

y w as tol d tha t t he c ocai ne’ s w hol esal e v alu e w as be tw een $ 630 ,50 0 and $ 729 ,00 0. T he jury co uld have conclu ded t hatCosio would not h av e pl aced suc h v alu abl e carg o in Lopez ’s posses si on, w hil e leav ing hi m ig norant o f all deta il s su rro undi ng hi s respon si bil ity and the i mport ance of the c arg o i n hi s c are. 43 Last ly , t he j ur

y co uld hav e c oncl uded t hat L opezkn ew of the c ocai ne’ s p re senc e upon f inding tha t (1) his nerv ous d em ean or evi den ce d a c o n s c iousn ess of g uilt, and (2) his

44W e fi nd tha t t he j ur yr easona bl ym ade t he n ecessar yi nf er ences based upon t he co m bi ned and 45 c u m u l a ti v e fo rc e o f a l l th e e v i d e n c e w h e n v i e w e d i n th e l i g h t m o s t fa v o ra b l e to th e ve rd i c t. See H ooper, 214 S. W

. 3d a t 16- 17.

See Uni t ed Stat es v. W i lliam s- H endr

icks , 805 F. 2d 4 96, 501 ( 5t h Ci r . 198 6) ( “ As t he o wnerof t he 46 t r uck, H endr i ck s had cont r ol ov erwho u sed i t and how i t was use d. Hendr i ck s al l owed W i l l i am s t o dr i v e t he tr u c k b a c k to th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d a c c o m p a n ie d h im o n th e tr ip

. W h e n c o n s id e r e d w ith o th e re v id e n c e in t hi s case, cont r ol ov ert he v ehi cl e wher e con t r aband i s f ound i s suff i ci ent ev i dence byw hi ch a j ur ycoul d i nf er th a t H e n d ric k s p o s s e s s e d th e m a riju a n a .”); S e n d e jo v . S ta te , 8 4 1 S .W .2 d 8 5 6 , 8 6 0 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 19 92 , no pe t
. ).

W a ts o n v . S ta te , 2 0 4 S .W .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4 -1 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); D ric h a s v . S ta te , 175 S. W

. 3d 47 7 9 5 , 7 9 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). 17 q uest ion to Dep uty

W y att— “W ho p oin t t he fing er?” —was an i ncr imi nati ng st atement conne cti ng hi m to t he c ocai ne, a s i nter preted by D eputy W y att. In l ig ht of the jur

y ’s abi li ty to make the aforementi oned inferences , as w ell as the 45
ev ide nce est abl is hin g that Lopezoc cupi ed and ow ned t he Lanc er w hen t he c ocai ne was discovered—we deem there was some ev iden ce pe rmitting the jury to reaso nab ly conc lud e beyond a re asona ble doubtthatLopez had know led g e of the mere pr esenc e of cocain e, an d tha t he ha d kno w ledge of his poss essionof coc ain e. 46 V. F A CTUA L S UF FI CI E NCY A . St and ard o f Rev iew I n h is se c o n d is s u e , L o p e z a rg u e s t h a tt h e e vid e n c e i s fa ct u a ll y i n s u f f ic ie n tt o p ro ve that he k now ing ly

ex erci sed care, c ust ody , c ontrol, or manag ement of the c ocai ne, o r that he k now ing ly

pos ses sed the c ocai ne. W hen rev iew ing the factual su ff ici e n cy o f the ev ide nce to s uppor

t a conv icti on, we rev iew al l the e v ide nce in a n e u tr a l light , fav or ing n e it h e r pa rty. W e th e n as k (1 ) whe th e r th e evid e n ce su p p o rt in g th e co n vict io n , a lt h o u gh

47 leg all y su ff ic ien t, is nev erthe le ss so w eak that the j ur y ’s v erdict s eems c lea rl y w ro ng or ma nifestly unju st, or (2) w het her, con sidering conf licting evidence, the jury’ s ve rdict isW atson , 2 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4 -1 5 , 4 1 7 ; J o h n s o n v . S ta te , 23 S

. W

. 3d 1, 11 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 00 ). 48 W atson , 204 S. W

. 3d a t 417

. 49I d. 50 John son , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 9 ; C a in v . S ta te , 95 8 S

. W

. 2d 40 4, 40 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 97 ). 51 G o o d m a n v . S ta te , 66 S

. W

. 3d 28 3, 29 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 01 ). 52 18 a gai n stth e grea t wei ghtan d pre p o n d e ra n ce of th e e vide n ce . An a p p e lla te co u rtju d ge 48
canno t c oncl ude t hat a co nv icti on i s “ cl ear ly w ro ng ” or

“ manifest ly

unj ust ” si mply

bec ause, on th e q uantum o f ev ide nce admitted, she woul d hav e v oted to acq uit had she been on the jur y . N or ca n an appel lat e c our

t dec lare tha t a confli ct in the ev ide nce jus ti fies a new tr ial 49 simp ly beca use it disagrees wi th th e jury ’s resolution of thatconf lict. Neve rt hele ss, 50 tho ugh due deferen ce mu st be g iv en to the fact f inde r's determ inatio ns—pa rticularly those conc er nin g the w eig ht and credi bil ity of the ev ide nce—the rev iew ing co urt may di sag re e w it h the resul t i n order

to prev ent a mani fest i nju sti ce. 51 The cour t of c ri minal appeal s h as sta ted t hat “ [w]hi le alt er nati v e hy pothes es maybe a facto r in condu cting a fa ctua l suf f iciency rev ie w, ” it has “ne v er held th at th e old out stan ding reason able hy pot hesis te st mu st be satisf ied fo r the ev iden ce to be factu ally suffici ent.” As ex pla ine d by the Dal lasC our

t of Appea ls i n Richar

dson v. State : 52 [A] review ing court cond ucting a factu al s u f f icie ncy ana lysis necessa rily cons ide rs any

reason abl e al ter nati v e reason abl e hy pothes es ra is ed by the evidence. T he v ery nat ure of a fa ctua l suf f iciency rev iew

requires the court to c o n s id e r a ll of

the evidence presen ted at trial and n ot just th at w hich is favorable to th e v erdict. T h erefore, if the evidence sugg ests th e existence of a reason able alterna tiv e reaso nab le hypothe sis, the cou rt ca nno t ig nore it a nd still prop erly

p erform the ana lysis req uired un der Clewis

. Howev er , t he mere ex is tenc e of an alt er nati v e re asona ble hy pothes is does not re nder the ev ide nce factual ly

i nsuffici ent.
. . . [E] ven w hen an appel lan t i denti fies an alt er nati v e reason abl e hy pothes is rais ed by the ev ide nce, the st andard ofR ic h a rd s o n v . S ta te , 9 7 3 S .W .2 d 3 8 4 , 3 8 7 ( T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 1 9 9 8 , n o p e t.); s e e g e n e r a lly H a r r is 53 v . S ta te , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d 7 6 0 , 7 6 3 -6 5 (T e x . A p p .– T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 4 , p e t. re f’d ); O ro n a v . S ta te , 836 S. W

. 2d 3 19, 32 2 (T ex . A pp . –A us t i n 1 99 2, no pe t
. ).

O n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , D e p u ty D e a r m o n a n d S g t. O r te g o n b o th a c k n o w le d g e d t h a t it w a s p o s s ib le 54 t hat Lop ez and C osi o wer e m eet i ng a t t he M cD onal d’ s fo rt he f i r st t i m e. D eput yD ear m on a ck nowl edged t hat he d i d no t hav e an yev i dence ofa l ongst andi ng r el at i onshi p be t ween Lo pez and C osi o.

W hen asked on cr oss- exam i nat i on whet her Lopez and C osi o coul d have b ee n d i s cussi ng 55 “s o m e th i n g c o m p l e te l yi n n o c e n t,” D e p u tyD e a rm o n re s p o n d e d , “I h a v e n o i d e a w h a t t h e ys a i d , s i r.” 19 re v iew remains the same. 53 B. Discuss ion W hil e v iew ing the ev ide nce in a neutra l li g ht does not al ter the cumul ati v e forc e of the ev iden ce perm itting the fact-f inde r to infer thatCosio placed the coca ine in the Lan cer, itdoes di mini sh the s treng th of the l ink es tabl is hin g Lopez ’s kn ow led g e of the coc ain e. 1. S usp icio us Act

ivit y at t he Mc Do nald’

s Beca use w eig hin g the factual su ff ic ien cy of the ev ide nce obl ig ates us to c onsi der the entirety of

the evidence in a neu tral lig ht, we need not ignore tha t (1) th ere are numerous li nks , di sc uss ed abov e, t hat weig h ag ain st there bei ng a nex us between Lop ez and t he c ocai ne; ( 2) t here i s n o ev ide nce that Lopezhad any prev iou s i nv olv ement w it h drug traf f icking; ( 3) T NET had intelligence ty ing Cosio to drug traf f icking, but no int elligence involv ed Lope z ; ( 4) there is no ev ide nce that Lopez w as aw are of Cos io’ s d ri v ing acti v ity pr ior to Cos io’ s i nit ial ar ri v al at t he M cD onal d’s ; ( 5) there is no ev ide nce that Lopezhad ever met or spoke n w ith Cosio prior to their obse rv ed conversations at the McDonald’s; 54 (6 ) there i s no ev ide nce that Lopezand Cos io w ere di sc uss ing anythi ng rela ti ng to cont ra band atthe Mc Don ald ’s ; ( 7) there i s n o ev ide nce that Lopezkn ew w here C osi o had 55 driv en th e La ncer; an d (8) Deputy Dearmo n and S gt. Orte gon testif ied tha t it was possibleIn D el Agui la- R eyes , Just i ce R ubi n’ s di ssent cri t i ci z ed t he m aj or i t y ’ s use oft he co nt ent i on, st at i ng: 56 M y br et hr en i nf er gui l t f r om t he v al ue of t he car go a nd t he su pposi t i on t hat t he o wner ofso pr eci ous a st or e of cont r aband woul d no tl i k el yent r ust i t t o an i nnocen t
. I do not know how t he m i nds o fnar cot i cs dea l er s w or k , but t he i nf er ence t hat dup es who ar e un awar e t hat t h e y c a r r y v a l u a b l e c a r g o a r e l e s s l i ke l y t o s t e a l i t t h a n wi t t i n g a c c o m p l i c es ap pear s t o m e equal l yt enabl e. 722 F. 2d a t 158 ( R ubi n, J. , di ssent i ng)

. I n U n ite dS ta te s v . L ittre ll , 5 7 4 F .2 d 8 2 8 ( 5 th C i r. 1 9 7 8 ), th e F i fth C i r cui t r ej ect ed t he g ov er nm ent ’ s at t em pt t o use t he v al ue o fcont r aband t o i nf erknowl edge:

I t i s ent i r el ypossi bl e t hat Li t t r el l di d not k now t he cocai ne was i n t he car . T he g ov er nm ent suggest ed a t or al ar gum ent t hat such an i nt er pre t ati on i s notr easona bl e be cause a dr ug “ boss” woul d no t ent r ust del i v er y ofsev er al t housan d do l l ar s wor t h of cocai ne t o som eone w h o d i d n o t k n o w o f i ts p re s e n c e o r w h o d i d n o t k n o w o f th e d ru g o p e ra ti o n i ts e l f. T h is anal y si s has t wo cr i t i cal f l aws. Fi r st , dr ug b osses c om e i n al l shap es an d si z es an d com e f r o m a ll w a lk s o flif e . H e r e , th a t b o s s m a y h a v e b e e n a r e s p e c te d b u s in e s s m a n w h o d e a lt i n coca i ne “ on t he si de. ” Foral l we know, Li t t r el l coul d ha v e be en o ne o fhi s “ l egi t i m at e” e m p lo y e e s , a n d th e “b o s s ” w o u l d h a v e e v e ry re a s o n to tru s t h i m . S e c o n d , w e c a n h a r d ly pr esum e t hat Li t t r el l knew oft he d r ug o per at i on; i nd ee d, i t m i ght be an a sset f orsuch a c o u rie r to b e u n i n fo rm e d a b o u t t h e n a tu re o f h i s d e l i v e ry, s i n c e h e w o u l d h a v e n o re a s o n to b e n e r v o u s o ra p p r e h e n s iv e a b o u t a t a s k h e b e lie v e d to b e p e r f e c tly le g itim a te . T h u s , L itt r e ll m aysi m pl yhav e be en a n un k nowi ng “ r unner ” i n t he d el i v er ypr ocess. Id

. at 832 - 33. 20 that Lopezl ent t he Lancer to Cos io for i nnoce nt reason s, and t hat L opezdi d notkn ow Cos io woul d pl ace cont ra band i n the veh ic le. These fact s c ut i nto a fact- finder ’s abi li ty to conc lud e tha t Lop ezal lowed C osi o to tak e pos ses si on of the Lance r becau se Lopezwas know ing ly

par ti ci pati ng i n a d ru g transacti on. 2. Quantity of Cont

raband W it h reg ard to the q uanti ty of cont ra band, w e not e tha t t he co n te n ti o n t hat a cont ra band’ s mone tar

y v alu e c an c re ate an inference of k now led g e has been c ri ti ci z ed. 56 Nev erthel ess , ev en i f w e embrace the c ontent ion , and thus conc lud e tha t C osi o woul d not have place d v alua ble cargo in the L ance r w ithou t its ow ner’s knowled ge, no evidence ex cl udes the p oss ibi li ty thatC osi o made his acti ons know n to Rui z , butnot Lopez

. In fact , Sg t. Or teg on ac know led g ed th at i t was poss ibl e that Rui zknew Cosi o, but Lopezdid not

.Lassai nt , 79 S. W

. 3d a t 739

. 57Id

. at 743

. 58I d. (ci t ati on om i t t ed ). 59I d. 60 D eput y Shaddox acknowl edged at t r i al t hat som e i ndi v i dual s si m pl ygetnerv ous when st opped by 61 peace off i cer s. 21 3. Con scio usn ess o f Guilt: Nervo usn ess W e ne xt recogniz e tha t Lop ez’s nervousne ss creates a tenu ous link be tw een him and the cocai ne. In Lass ain t v . St ate , Las sai nt arg ued t hat t here was leg all y i nsuffici ent evidence to supp ort his conviction for posse ssion w ith inten t to deliv er. At trial, a po lice 57 off ic er tes ti fied th at before he dis cov ered the contraband all eg edl y pos ses sed by

Las sai nt, he obs er v ed th at La ss ain t was ner v ous. I n weig hin g that testi mony , this Cour

t noted t hat 58 thoug h “ [e]xces si v e ner v ous b ehav ior

and unsettl ed demeano r maybe e x amplesof cons ci ousne ss of g uil t[, ] [ t]he court s h av e recog niz ed .

. . thatner v ousne ss i s a tenu ous li nk to t he c ontraband b ecaus e most peopl e are s omew hat n er v ous w hen c onfronte d by a pol ic e off ic er .” W e the n hel d tha t b ecaus e the pol ic e off ic er ’s tes ti mony es tabl is hed 59 tha t Lassa int w as bo th ne rv ous and coop erative , h is co ndu ct did no t indicat e “a cons ci ousne ss of g uil t.” As i n Lass ain t , t h e evid e n ce in th is c a se es ta b lis h e d th a t t h o u gh 60 Lopezwas ner

v ous, he was als o cooperati v e: he did not attempt to f lee , he re spond ed to question s a s k e d , a n d he provided ora l and wr itten conse nt to a search of the La ncer. W hile kno w ledge of

t he co caine ’s presence in the trun k may have g iv en rise to Lo pez’s ner v ousne ss , i t may

hav e j ustas eas il y

resul ted from (1 ) Dep uty Shaddox ’s presenc e by it sel f; ( 2) hi s k now led g e tha t nei ther he n or R uizw ere c ar ry ing ei th e r th e ir li cens es or 61S o m e c o u rts h a v e e v e n d e te rm i n e d th a t a la c k o f n e rv o u s n e s s m a yi n d i c a te g u i l t. S e e , e .g ., 62 R o s a le s v . S ta te , 50 S. W

. 3d 650, 655- 56 ( T ex. A pp. –W aco 2001, pet
. re f ’ d. ) (st at i ng t hat a “ l ack ofsur pr i se orconce r n du r i ng a t em por ar ydet en t i on and i nv est i gat i on ca n sug gest knowl edge oft he p r esence of cont r aband ” )

. As ob ser v ed b yJust i ce Br i an Q ui nn i n Va lle v . S ta te :

I t i s i nt er est i ng h ow easi l yev i dence ofdem eanorcan be m ani pul at ed t o m ean j ust aboutany t hi ng. Som e sug gest t hat nerv ousness i ndi cat es gui l t
. O t her s fi nd cul pabi l i t yi n a suspect ’ s cal m ness. Shoul d he coop er at e wi t h l aw enf or cem ent or consent t o a sear ch, t hen t hat si m pl ym eans ( as one off i cerhas i nsi nuat ed her e) he i s set t i ng h i m sel fup t o l at erf ei gn s u rp ris e a n d i n n o c e n c e . B u t, i f th e s u s p e c t w e re to b e u n c o o p e ra ti v e o r re fu s e to p e rm i t a sear ch, t hen he m ust be hi di ng so m et hi ng, som e woul d say

. I nt er est i ng, i ndeed

. 22 3 S

. W

. 3d 53 8, 54 3 n

. 3 (T ex . A pp . –A m ari l l o 2 00 6, pe t
. di s m ’ d).

S e e Va lle , 223 S. W

. 3d a t 542 - 43 ( di scussi ng a pol i ce off i cer ’ s t est i m ony , i n whi ch t he o ff i ceropi ned 63 th a t t h e a c c u s e d ’s c o o p e r a tiv e n e s s d u r in g a tr a ff ic s to p , a n d h is r e a c tio n o fd is b e lie fu p o n th e o ff ic e r ’s di s c ove ryof co ntr ab an d, “i s oft en an at t em pt t o m as k gu i l t ”)

.

See Evans , 202 S. W

. 3d a t 164

. 64 22 p ro o f o f in s u ra n c e ; o r ( 3 ) t h e fa ctt h a th e wa s n o tf ro m t h is co u n t ry. 62 4. Incr iminating Stateme nt W e also ob serv e tha t one could d ra w m ore tha n on e inferen ce f rom L ope z ’s state me nt to Deput y

W yatt: “ W ho p oint th e f inger?” On cross-ex am inatio n, Lo pez’s couns el v ocal iz ed atl eastone comp e ti n g i nferenc e w hen he ask ed D eputy W y att if the sta tement coul d sug g estan inn ocentperso n aski ng , “w ho set me up” or “ w ho’ s t ell ing you I di d th i s ?” Th ou g h D ep uty W y att rep l i ed t ha t an i nn oc en t pe rs on wou l d no t us e th e te r ms uti li z ed by

Lopez , butwoul d s impl y sa y , “I did n’tdo anythi ng ,” case law rev eal s t hat e v en a st a t e m e n tsu c h a s t h is is n o tim m u n e f ro m sc ru t in y. 63 5. Logica l Force of Factors Combined in Proving Knowledge Thoug h thi s C o u rtc an q uest ion and re v eal weakne ss es in ev er y factor the Stat e utiliz es to link Lo pez to the cocain e, w e can notsimply assess th e strength o f the St ate ’s cas e by anal yz ing ev er

y factor i n i sol ati on; rather , we m u sta n a lyz e the l og ic al force of

64See Lassa int , 79 S. W

. 3d a t 741

. 65See G r

ant , 989 S. W

. 2d a t 433

. 66“ [ W ] e per m i t j ur i es t o dr aw m ul t i pl e r easona bl e i nf er ences as l ong as ea ch i nf er ence i s supp or t ed 67 by t he evi de nc e p res en t ed at t ri al

. ” H ooper, 214 S. W

. 3d a t 15. 23 the fact ors c ombine d i n es tabl is hin g the ele ments of the offense. U pon as ses si ng that 65 log ic al force, w e must then deter mine w hether i t g enerates more tha n a s trong su spi ci on or mere probabi li ty

of g uil t. 66 B a s e d o n a n e u t ra l vi e w o f t h e fo ll o win g fa ct s , we f in d t h a tt h e j u ry c o u ld h a ve re a s o nab ly

inferred th at atleast on e individual—eith er Lop ez or Ruiz—knowingl y par ti ci pated in a dr ug transacti on w it h C osi o: (1 ) Lopezand Rui zco-ow ned the Lanc er ; ( 2) bot h w ere prese nt atthe McDona ld’s and sp oke w ith Cosio; (3) b oth were o bviously aw are tha t Cosio had driv en a w ay in the ir v ehicle for som e pu rpose ; (4) i tca n be reason ably infer re d, as ex pla ine d abov e, t hat C osi o pl aced coc aine i n t h e L a ncer ; and ( 5) i t c an be re aso n a b ly in ferred th at C osi o woul d nothav e pl aced carg o v alu ed at$630, 500 t o $72 9,0 00 in th e La ncer w ithou t informin g at lea st one of its ow ners o f

a ll t he d eta ils sur ro undi ng hi s respon si bil ity and the imp ortanc e of the carg o i n hi s c are. W e do not 67 believe tha t this inferen ce, by itself, perm its a fact-f inde r to co nclud e be y ond a reason able dou bt th at Lo pez knew

the Lan cer co nta ined cocaine . Th is Court doe s believe, howev er, tha t a fact-f inde r can com e to this conclu sion w hen Lop ez’s state me nt to Deput y W y att is com bine d w ith the aforem ent ione d facts. It w as the j ur

y ’s respon si bil ity

t o resol v e c onfli ctsi n the ev ide nce and t o draw reaso nabl e i nfe ren c es from i t. W e pres um e th att he j ur y c ho s e to i nfe r

t ha t Lo pez’s st a te m e n t m e a n t “who t o ld o n m e o r who k n e w I was de a lin g th e dru gs, ta kin g th e dru gsT h e j u ry’ s fre e d o m to s e l e c t a m o n g c o m p e ti n g i n te rp re ta ti o n s h a s i ts l i m i ta ti o n s . See Ander son 68 v. C it y of Bessem er , 470 U

. S. 564, 574 ( 1985) ( “ W her e t her e ar e t wo per m i ssi bl e v i ews oft he e v i dence, t he fac t fi nd er’ s ch oi c e b etwe en t he m ca nn ot be cl ea rl yerron eo us . ”)

.

T hough Lopez di d not pr esent ev i dence at t r i al , he r ai sed t he a l t er nat i v e hy pot hesi s t hr ough cr oss- 69 exam i nat i on o ft he St at e’ s wi t nesses.

See Wi lliam s- H endr

icks , 8 0 5 F .2 d 4 9 6 a t 5 0 1 ; S e n d e jo , 841 S. W

. 2d a t 860

. 70 24 somew he re a n d t o l d yo u t o s t o p m e , ” a s s u g g e s t e d b y D e p u ty W y a tt , ra t h e r

t h a n the m e a n in g p ro f

fe re d b y L o p e z’s c o u n s e l. I n s o d o in g, t h e ju ry reje ct e d L o p e z’s a lt e rn a t ive 68 hy pothes is thathe was an i nnocen t o b se rver of a dr ug transacti on betw een R uizand Cos io. The j ur

y may hav e found s uppor

t for it s i nter pretati on f ro m (1 ) the beli ef that the 69
words compr is ing the st atement bett er lent themsel v es to t he c hosen i nter pretati on, a nd (2 ) the factthat , j usta few min utes pr ior

to maki ng the sta tement, Lopezwas obser v ed enga gi n g in suspiciou s activ ity thatresem bled drug traff icking beh avior. W e thu s af ford due deference to t he j ur y ’s findi ng s and decl ine to re ev alu ate the weig ht t he j ur y afforded Lopez ’s st atement in ar ri v ing at it s v erdict. Acc ordin g ly , w e find that the e v ide nce g enerates more tha n a s trong su spi ci on or mere prob ab i l i ty

t ha t Lo pe zk ne w

o f t he c oc ai ne . M oreo v er , be c au s e th e ev iden ce encompas ses the fact th at Lo pezwas an ow ner and occ upant of the Lancer at the time the coc ain e was dis cov ered, we find that the jur y could conc lud e bey ond a re asona ble doubt t h a tL o p e z kn o win gl y p o s s e s s e d t h e co c a in e . T h o u gh t h is c a s e p re s e n t s a c lo s e c a ll , we 70 si mply can n o t sa y t hat—from the total ity of the e v ide nce w hen c onsi dered i n a n eutral li g ht—the e v ide nce suppo rt ing co nv icti on is so w eak that the v erdict s eems c lea rl y w ro ng and mani festl y

unj ust
. VI. C ONCL US I ON25

The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

LINDA REYNA Y

AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Publ is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 2 9th d ay

of Ma y , 200 8.