## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0470- 07
A R TH U R LE E W I LL I A M S , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE NI NTH CO URT O F AP PEALS M ON TGO M ERY CO UNTY M E YE RS , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h W OMACK , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , and H OL C OM B , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P . J. , j oi ned ex cept f or F o o tn o te 2 . W OMACK , J ., fi le d a c o n c u r r in g o p in io n . P RI CE and C OCHRAN , J J ., c o n c u r r e d in th e ju d g m e n t. J OHNS ON , J. , di s s e nt e d. O P I N I O N A ppel l ant , A r t hurL ee W i l l i ams, w as convi ct ed of t amper i ng w i t h phy s i cal evi dence unders ect i on 37. 09( a) ( 1) of the Texas Penal C ode and s ent ence d t o t w enty - fi veWil liams–Page2

Unless otherw ise specif

ied, all futureref

erences to sec tions refer to the Texas Penal 1 Code. y e a r s o f c o n f i n e m e n t . A p p e l l a n ta p p e a l e d a n d th e c o u r to f a p p e a l s a f

f i r m e d . We 1 g r a n t e d r e v i e w t o c o n s i d e rt h e l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c yo f

th e e v i d e n c e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I . FACTS A pol i ce of

fi cerpatr ol l i ng a hi gh- cr i m e nei ghborhood fol l ow ed a c aroccupi ed by A ppel l antand D arr el l Fi el ds . Fi el ds parked on the w r ong s i de of the s t r eeti n fr ontof a hous e know n byt he off i cert o be a c r ack hous e. T he off i cer , M i chae l St ow e, s t opped behi nd the ca r . A s O ffi cerSt ow e appr oache d t he ca r , he obs erved A ppel l anti n t he fr ont p a ss e n g e r se a t, m o v in g h is h a n d s a ro u n d h is w a istb a n d , w h ich c a u se d O f f ice r S to w e to s us pectt hatA ppel l antcoul d be conc eal i ng a w eapon. O ffi cerSt ow e per form ed a
w e a p o n s p a t-d o w n o n b o th F ield s a n d A p p e llan t. D u rin g th e p a t-d o w n o f A p p e llan t, O ffi cerSt ow e hea r d an obj ecthi tt he gr ound. L ooki ng dow n, O ffi cerSt ow e r ecogni zed the fa l l en obj ectas an i nt actcr ack pi pe. I n t hati ns t ant , A ppel l ants t om ped on the cr ack p ip e , b re a k in g it in to p ie c e s . A tt r i al , t he St at e pr es ent ed the pi ece s of the pi pe O ffi cerSt ow e w as abl e t o col l ect that ni gh t , i ncludi ng a cop per m esh fi l t er and b roken g l ass. T he S t at e al so off ered, as a d e m o n stra tiv e e x h ib it, a n in tac t cr a c k p ip e to sh o w th e ju ryh o w th e re m n a n ts a p p e a re d in thei rform erphy s i cal s t at e. T he j ur yconvi ct ed A ppel l antof t amper i ng w i t h phy s i cal e v id e n c e , a n d th e c o u rt a s s e s s e d a s e n te n c e o f tw e n ty-f iv e y e a rs o f

c o n f in e m e n t. T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 37. 09( a) ( 1) ( V ernon 2003) . A ppel l antappea l ed, ar gui ng s evenWil liams–Page3

i s s ues , fourof w hi ch addr es s ed the l egal and fa ctual s uffi ci encyof the evi dence es t abl i s hi ng t hathe knew t he cr ack pi pe w as evi dence i n t he i nves t i gat i on and thatthe c ra c k p ip e w a s d e s tr o y e d w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e la w . W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , N o. 09- 06- 103- C R , 2007 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 892 ( T ex. A pp. –B eaumontFeb. 7, 2007, pet . gr ant ed) (m e m . o p ., n o t d e sig n a ted f o r p u b lica tio n ). T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a f

f irm e d th e trial c o u rt, concl udi ng t hata r at i onal j ur ycoul d have f ound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatA ppel l ant knew the cr ack pi pe w as evi dence i n the i nves t i gat i on- i n- pr ogr es s , and thatthe cr ack pi pe w a s d e s tr o y e d w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e la w . I

d. W e gr ant ed A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew t o det erm i ne w hethert he cour tof appe al s err ed i n hol di ng t hatthe evi dence w as l egal l ys uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t he fol l ow i ng t w o poi nt s : ( 1) A ppel l ant ’ s know l edge thata cr ack pi pe w as evi dence i n t he cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on t hatw as i n pr ogr es s , and ( 2) thatA ppel l antdes t r oy ed evi dence , s p e c if ic a lly a c ra c k p ip e , w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e la w . I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW I n eval uat i ng t he l egal s uffi ci encyof the evi dence , w e cons i derthe evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he j ur y ’ s ver di ctand det erm i ne w hethera r at i onal j urycoul d have f o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u iltyo f

a ll o f th e e lem e n ts o f

th e o f f e n se b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. J a c k so n v . V irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 (1 9 7 9 ); Sw e a rin g e n v . S ta te , 101 S. W . 3d 89, 95 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e d u e-p roc ess g u ara n tee d em an d s tha t w e re v erse an d o rde r aWil liams–Page4

j udgm entof ac qui t t al i f a r at i onal j uryw oul d ent ert ai n a r eas onabl e doubtas t o t he d e f e n d a n t’ s g u ilt. Sw ear i ngen , 1 0 1 S .W .3 d a t 9 5 . I I I . T E XA S P E N A L C O D E SE C T I O N 37. 09( a) ( 1) T hr ee e l ement s defi ne the off ens e of t amper i ng w i t h phy s i cal evi dence : ( 1) k n o w ing that an inv esti g ati o n o r of ficial pro ce ed ing is pe n d ing o r i n p rog ress, (2) a p e rso n a lters , d e stro y s, o r c o n c e a ls a n yre c o rd , d o c u m e n t, or th in g , (3 ) w ith in ten t to i m pai ri t s ver i t y , l egi bi l i t y , oravai l abi l i t yas evi dence i n t he i nves t i gat i on oroffi ci al p ro c e e d in g . § 3 7 .0 9 (a )( 1 ). T he thr ee e l ement s of s ect i on 37. 09( a) ( 1) i ncl ude “tw o di ffe r entcul pabl e ment al s ta te s ”

– k n o w le d g e a n d in te n t. S tew a rt v . S ta te , 240 S. W . 3d 872, 874 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e statute req u ir es th e k n o w ledg e o f a n inv esti g ati o n an d the in tent to im p air a th in g ’s a v a ilab ili tya s e v id e n c e . A s d e f in e d b yth e T e x a s P e n a l C o d e , “[ a ] p e rso n a c ts know i ngl y , orw i t h know l edge, w i t h r es pect. . . t o ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng hi s conduct
w hen he i s aw ar e . . . t hatt he ci r cumst ance s exi s t . ” T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 6. 03( b) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). I n c o n tr a s t, “ [ a ] p e rs o n a c ts in te n tio n a lly, o r w ith in te n t, w ith re s p e c t . . . t o a r es ul tof hi s conductw hen i ti s hi s cons ci ous obj ect i ve ordes i r e t o . . . caus e the
r es ul t . ” T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 6 . 0 3 (a) (V ern o n 2 0 0 3 ). A ppel l ant ’ s i ndi ctm ents peci fi cal l yal l eged the fol l ow i ng: “know i ng thatan in v e stig a tio n w a s in p ro g re ss , to- w it: c h e c k in g [ A p p e llan t] f o r w e a p o n s, [ A p p e llan t]Wil liams–Page5

in ten tio n a llya n d k n o w in g lyd e stro y [ e d ] d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia, to -w it: a c ra c k p ip e , w ith i nt entt o i m pai ri t s ver i t yand ava i l abi l i t yas evi dence i n t he i nves t i gat i on. ” I V. KN OW LEDGE TH AT THE CR ACK PI PE W AS E VI DENCE A p p e llan t ch a llen g e s th e leg a l su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e e sta b lish in g h is k n o w led g e th a t th e c ra c k p ip e w a s e v id e n c e in th e c rim in a l in v e stig a tio n th a t w a s in p ro g re ss . H e a ss e rts th a t th e S tate f a iled to p ro v e th a t an in v e stig a tio n w a s in p ro g re ss in
w hi ch the br oken cr ack pi pe mi ghthave s erved as evi dence . U s i ng the ana l y s i s pr es ent ed i n P a n n e ll v. S ta te , 7 S. W . 3d 222 ( T ex. A pp. –D al l as 1999, pet . r ef’ d) , A ppel l antar gues th a t w h e n ste p p in g o n th e c ra c k p ip e , h e c o u ld n o t h a v e in ten d e d to im p a ir its a v a ilab ili ty a s e v id e n c e in th e in v e stig a tio n b e c a u se h e d id n o t k n o w th a t a d ru g s in v e stig a tio n w a s in pr ogr es s . I n P a n n e ll , t he Fi fth C our tof A ppeal s acqui t t ed an a ppel l antw ho thr ew m ar i huana outof a c arw i ndow dur i ng a tr aff i c i nves t i gat i on, concl udi ng thats ect i on 37. 09( a) ( 1) r equi r ed the appe l l antt o “be a w ar e thatthe thi ng he al t er ed, des t r oy ed, or conce al ed w as evi dence i n t he i nves t i gat i on as i texi s t ed atthe t i m e of the al t er at i on, des truct i on, orconce al m ent . ” I d. at223. T he courtr eas oned thatther e w as no i nves t i gat i on, pendi ng ori n pr ogr es s , i n w hi ch the mar i huana c oul d have s erved as e v id e n c e . Id
. a t 2 2 4 . I n thi s cas e, t he courtof appe al s acc ept ed P a n n e ll ’s s t atut oryi nt erpr et at i on, r equi r i ng A ppel l ant ’ s aw ar enes s t hatthe cr ack pi pe w as evi dence i n a cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on t hatw as i n pr ogr es s . I n or dert o fi nd thi s el ements at i s fi ed, the courtofWil liams–Page6

appea l s deci ded thatt he i nves t i gat i on- i n- pr ogr es s tr ans form ed fr om a w eapons inv esti g ati o n to a d rug s inv esti g ati o n the m o m en t th e c rac k p ipe f ell fro m A p p ell an t’ s p a n ts . Wi l l i a ms , 2007 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 892 at*7. T her efor e, w hen A ppel l ants t epped on t he cr ack pi pe, t he i nves t i gat i on w as no l ongera w eapons i nves t i gat i on, butw as , at thatpoi nt , a drugs i nves t i gat i on; and, A ppel l antw oul d have be en “a w ar e” thatthe cr ack p i p e wa s e v i d e n c e i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a s i te x i s t e d a tth e t i me o f d e s t ru c t i o n . By c a te g o ri z in g th e in v e s tig a tio n in th is w a y , th e c o u rt h a rm o n iz e d th e e v id e n c e d e s tr o y e d , a cr ack pi pe, w i t h t he i nves t i gat i on- i n- pr ogr es s , “an i nves t i gat i on fordrugs and/ ordrug par aphernal i a. ” I

d. O thercas es fol l ow i ng P a n n e llhave s i m i l ar l yanal y zed the eve nt s l eadi ng up t o the
a lte ra tio n , d e s tru c tio n , o r c o n c e a lm e n t o f e v id e n c e in o rd e r t o c la s s if yth e in v e s tig a tio n . See W h itlo c k v . S ta te , N o. 12- 05- 00206- C R , 2006 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 5301, at*7 ( T ex. A p p . – T y ler Jun e 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , n o p et. ) (m em . o p . , n o t des ign ated fo r pu b li ca ti o n ); D ool ey v . S ta te , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d 3 7 4 , 3 7 8 (T e x . A p p .– A u stin 2 0 0 4 , p e t. ref ’d ); L u m p k in v . S ta te , 129 S. W . 3d 659, 663 ( T ex. A pp. –H ous t on [1s tD i s t . ] 2004, pet . r ef’ d) . T hi s eff or tm akes s ens e w hen the i ndi ctm entdoes nots peci fi cal l yal l ege the type of i nves t i gat i on- i np ro g re s s . S e e L u m

p k in , 1 2 9 S .W .3 d a t 6 6 2 ; L e w is v . S ta te , 56 S. W . 3d 617, 624 ( T ex. A p p .– T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.) . B utt he i ndi ctm enti n t hi s cas e i s nots i l entas t o t he t i t l e of the i nves t i gat i on. T he pr obl em w i t h t he court ’ s anal y s i s i s thati ti gnor es the l anguage of the i ndi ctm ent , w hi chWil liams–Page7

Be causethe name of

the investig ation can beconsidere d an extra detail in an indictment 2 al l egi n g a v i o l at i o nun d er s ec t i o n3 7 . 0 9 (a )( 1 ), th i s s i tu at i o nco u l d b e an al y z edun d er s urp lu s age law, had that rule not been overr uled by this Court i n Go lliha r v . S tate , 46 S.W .3d 243, 256-57 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Se eals o S an tan a v. S

tate , 59 S.W .3d 187, 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (stating , “We explicitl y

overr uled the surplusag e ruleand the Bu rre ll exception in Gollihar .”). Surplusag e is an alleg ation in a cha rg ing instrument that is not leg ally essential to constitute the offense. Gollihar , 46 S.W .3d at 249. The sur plusag e doctrine stated, “ alleg ations which are not essential to constitute the off ense, a nd whichmight be entirely om itted without affecting the charge against the defendant, and without detriment to the indictment, aretreated as mere surplusag e” a

nd may be disreg arde d. W

he tston ev . S

tate , 786 S.W .2d 361, 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 90 ). B ut, wh e rean e xtra or unne c e ssa

ry a lle g atio n d e sc ribe d s omethingle g a lly e ssenti a l to charg e the c rime, the Bu rre ll exception require d the State to prove thesurplusag e as alleg ed. Gollihar , 46 S.W .3d at 250. In Gollihar , we overruled thesurplusag e ruleand theBu rre ll exception, and announc ed that the f atal variancedoctrine w ould be the tool with which to resolve surplusag e problems. Id. at 25 7 n .2 1. Ho wever, thefatal va ri anc edo c trinedo e s n ot a pp ly to t his case . A varianceexis ts “when there is a disc repa ncy between the alleg ations in the charg ing instrument and the proof

at trial.” Id. at 246. “In a variancesituation, the St ate ha s proven the defendant guilty

of a c rime, but has proven its commiss ion in a manner that varie s from the alleg ations in the charg ing instrument.” Id. The fatal varia nce doc trine provides that a variance between the wordingof the indictment and theproof at trial is fatal only if it prejudices the defendant’s substantial rights and is material. Id. at 257. In this case, there is no varia nce problem. The indictment state s that a we apons investig ation was in progress, a nd that corresponds to Offic er Stowe’ s trial testimony . s peci fi cal l ynames the i nves t i gat i on- i n- pr ogr es s a “w eapons ” i nves t i gat i on, not“an in v e s tig a tio n f

o r d ru g s a n d /o r d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia .” Wi l l i a ms , 2 0 0 7 T ex . A p p . L E X IS 2 892 at*7. W e do notneed t o change the t i t l e of the i nves t i gat i on fr om a w eapons i nves t i gat i on t o a drugs i nves t i gat i on i n or dert o fi nd A ppel l anti n vi ol at i on of s ect i on 3 7 .0 9 (a )( 1 ). P a n n e ll re q u ir e s th a t c h a n g e , b u t th e s ta tu te d o e s n o t. P a n n e llgraft s a four th el ementont o s ect i on 37. 09( a) ( 1) , and a na r r ow r eadi ng of the s t atut e does not su p p o rt P a n n e ll ’ s concl us i on t hata per s on m us tbe “a w ar e thatthe thi ng he al t er ed, des tr oy ed, orconce al ed w as evi dence i n t he i nves t i gat i on as i texi s t ed atthe t i m e of theWil liams–Page8

al t er at i on, des t ruct i on, orconce al m ent . ” P a n n e ll , 7 S .W .3 d a t 2 2 3 . F irst, co n tra ryto P a n n e ll ’ s i nt erpr et at i on, t he s t atut e i ncl udes tw o, notthr ee, m ent al
- s t at e r equi r ement s : t he k n o w ledg e o f a n inv esti g ati o n an d the in tent– the c o n scio u s o b jecti v e– to im p air a thing ’s
a v a ila b ility a s e v id e n c e in th e in v e s tig a tio n . P a n n e ll ’ s i ns ert i on of a f our t h el ementadds
a m e n ta l- s ta te re q u ir e m e n t n o t p re s e n t in th e la n g u a g e o f th e s ta tu te . S e c o n d , P a n n e ll ’s addi t i onal el ementpr es um es t hatan off enderw i l l have e val uat ed and c orr ect l yas s es s ed a thing ’s ev iden ti arystatu s u p o n it s d estruc ti o n . B yn o t r eq u ir ing an ex erc ise i n ev iden ti ary theory , the s t atut e i s m or e r efl ect i ve of i nves t i gat oryr eal i t y , envi s i oni ng an off enderw ho i nt ends for , buti s notnece s s ar i l yaw ar e of, the i m pai r m entof s om ethi ng’ s r ol e as e v id e n c e in th e in v e s tig a tio n . In c o n c lu sio n , A p p e llan t’s c h a llen g e d e p e n d s u p o n a n a d d iti o n a l ele m e n t to s e c t i o n 3 7 . 0 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) , i n t r o d u c e d b y P a n n e ll . T hi s el ementi s nots uppor t ed bythe l anguage o f th e s ta tu te a n d , th e re f

o re , A p p e lla n t’ s c h a lle n g e h a s n o s ta tu to ry f o u n d a tio n . M o re o v e r, P a n n e ll ’s f

o u rth e lem e n t re n d e rs th e sta tu te im p ra c tica l an d u n f it fo r its p u rp o s e . A p p e llan t’s a rg u m e n t h ig h lig h ts th e lac k o f c o o rd in a tio n w ith in th e in d ictm e n t, w hi ch names a cr ack pi pe as evi dence i n a w eapons i nves t i gat i on. B utthe t i t l e of the i nves t i gat i on and the evi dence des t r oy ed nee d notm at ch i n an i ndi ctm ental l egi ng an offe ns e unders ect i on 37. 09( a) ( 1) , as l ong as the off enderdes t r oy ed a thi ng w i t h t he i nt ent to im p air i ts av ail ab il ityas e v iden ce in an inv esti g ati o n that h e k n o w s is i n p rog ress. InWil liams–Page9

thi s cas e, the el ement s of the off ens e ar e s at i s fi ed. D ur i ng a w eapons pat - dow n, A p p e llan t ste p p e d o n th e c ra c k p ip e th e in sta n t itf e ll i n to th e o f

f ice r’s v iew , cru sh in g it in to p ie c e s . C o n s id e ri n g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t, a r at i onal j ur ycoul d have f ound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthat , know i ng a w eapons i nves t i gat i on w as i n pr ogr es s , A ppel l antdes t r oy ed a c r ack pi pe w i t h t he cons ci ous o b je c tiv e to im p a irits a v a ila b ility a s e v id e n c e in th e in v e s tig a tio n . V. DES TRUCTI ON OF EVI DENCE A ppel l antchal l enges t he l egal s uffi ci encyof the evi dence es t abl i s hi ng thathe des tr oy ed evi dence , t he cr ack pi pe, w i t hi n t he meani ng of the l aw . T hough s ect i on 37. 09( a) ( 1) pr ovi des foral t er at i on, des t ruct i on, orconce al m ent , the i ndi ctm ental l eged onl yt hatA ppel l antdes t r oy ed the cr ack pi pe. A ppel l antar gues thatthe cr ack pi pe w as n o td e s tr o ye d , a s d e f

i n e d b y S p e c to r v . S ta te , 746 S. W . 2d 945 ( T ex. A pp. –A us t i n 1988,
n o p e t.), b e c a u se th e g las s s h a rd s a n d c o p p e r m e sh f ilt e r, ad m itt e d in to e v id e n c e a t trial,
r et ai ned s om e evi dent i aryval ue. I n Spector , t he appe l l antt or e a mar i huana c i gar ett e i n t w o and “thr ew the pi ece s t ow ar d a di t ch. ” I

d. at946. O n appea l , s he as s ert ed thatthe evi dence coul d nothave b e e n d e s tr o y e d b e c a u s e th e c o n te n ts o f th e c ig a re tte w e re u s e d to c o n v ic t h e r. I d. a t 9 4 5 . In suppo rtof the charge, t he S t at e argued that the cigarett e had been dest roy ed b ecause the r ecove r ed cont ent s had “l os tt hei ri dent i t yas a ci gar ett e. ” I d. a t 9 4 5 -4 6 . In its
a n a ly sis , the c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls a n n o u n c e d tw o d e f in iti o n s o f

“ d e stro y e d ” a n d u lti m a telyWil liams–Page10

c o n c lu d e d th a t th e to rn c ig a re tte w a s n o t d e s tr o y e d . I d. at946. T he fi r s tdefi ni t i on s t at ed that“s om ethi ng i s des t r oy ed . . . w hen i t s evi dent i aryval ue i s des t r oy ed. ” I d. W ith o u t a l os s of evi dent i aryval ue, change s i n phy s i cal form “ar e mer e a ttem p ts t o des t r oyor al t er at i ons . ” I

d. T he s econd de fi ni t i on pr ovi ded forthe s i tuat i on w her e a pa r tof an obj ecti s r ecove r ed. I n s uch a c as e, t he evi dence i s des t r oy ed “w hen the partr ecove r ed has l es s evi dent i aryval ue than the w hol e. ” I d. I n A ppel l ant ’ s cas e, t he courtof appe al s det erm i ned thatthe col l ect ed pi ece s of the s h a t t e r e d p i p e s a t i s f

i e d t h e t e s tp r e s c r i b e d b y Spectorand thatthe cr ack pi pe w as des tr oy ed. I n concl udi ng t hatt he r ecove r ed part s had l es s evi dent i aryval ue than the
w hol e cr ack pi pe, t he courtof appe al s r el i ed hea vi l yon i t s as s es s m entthatthe cr ack pi pe i n i t s pr es ents t at e w as “no l ongerr ecogni zabl e. ” Wi l l i a ms , 2007 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 892 at*9. T hi s as s es s m entw as s uppor t ed bythe fa ctthatthe St at e s how ed an i nt actcr ack pi pe as a demonstr at i ve exhi bi tt o acc om panyO ffi cerSt ow e’ s des cr i pt i on of a c r ack p ip e ’s a p p e a ra n c e . I

d. A s i ti s appl i ed, Spector ’ s t w o- par tdefi ni t i on forfi ndi ng a thi ng “des t r oy ed” unde r s ect i on 37. 09( a) ( 1) i nhi bi t s t he St at e fr om offe r i ng col l ect ed r emai ns as evi dence attr i al and, i n eff

ect , r equi r es abs ol ut e nonexi s t ence . T he fi r s tdefi ni t i on, r equi r i ng thata thi ng have no e vi dent i aryval ue i n or dert o be “de s t r oy ed, ” r ender s the St at e unabl e t o offe r phy s i cal evi dence of the i t em ati s s ue. I f the St at e i ntr oduces anyr emai ns as evi dence , an es s ent i al el ementof the off ens e di s appea r s beca us e, upon bei ng admi t t ed, the r emai nsWil liams–Page11

have e vi dent i aryval ue, and thus , ar e not“des t r oy ed. ” I n appar entcontr adi ct i on t o t he fi r s tdefi ni t i on, t he s econd de fi ni t i on i n Spectoral l ow s r ecove r ed part s of a de s t r oy ed thi ng t o have e vi dent i aryval ue, i f theyhave l es s evi dent i aryval ue than the w hol e. B ut according t o the analy si s i n thatcase, a t orn ci garet t e t hrow n in a di t ch d oes no thav e l ess evi dent i aryval ue than a c om pl et e ci gar ett e. So i tr emai ns uncl earhow anyt hi ng coul d be “des tr oy ed” unde rei t herpar tof thi s s t andar d w hen part s ar e r ecove r ed. T o i nt erpr ett he us e of “ des t r oy s ” i n s ect i on 37. 09( a) ( 1) , “w e nec es s ar i l yfocus our at t ent i on on t he l i t er al t extof the s t atut e. ” B o y k in v . S ta te , 818 S. W . 2d 782, 785 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1991) . B eca us e “e veryw or d i n a s t atut e has been us ed fora purpos e” a nd b e c a u se “ e a c h w o rd , p h ra se , cla u se , an d se n ten c e sh o u ld b e g iv e n e f f e c t if re a so n a b ly pos s i bl e, ” “de s t r oy s ” musthave a n eff ectdi s t i nctfr om “al t er s ” and “ conce al s . ” Stat e v. H ar dy , 963 S. W . 2d 516, 520 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1997) . W e “f i r s tat t empt t o i nt erpr ett he s t atut e bas ed on the pl ai n m eani ng of the w or ds us ed. ” O liva s v . S ta te , 203 S. W . 3d 341, 3 4 5 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e P en al C o d e d o es n o t st atuto ri lyd ef ine “ d estroy s. ” In the abs ence of s t atut or ydefi ni t i ons , “w e turn t o t he comm on, or di narym eani ng of that
w or d. ” I d. W ebst er’ s D i ct i on arydefines “dest roy ” as: 1. t o demol i s h; t o t eardow n; as , t o des tr oy a hous e, t o des tr oy a c i t y. 2. t o rui n; t o br i ng t o naught ; t o s poi l compl et el y ; as , t o des tr oy a s cheme, t o des tr oy a governm ent , t o des tr oy on e’s hap piness . 3. t o take aw ayt he u t i l i t yof; t o m ake u sel ess. 4. t o putan end t o; t o do aw ayw i t h. 5 . to k ill . 6. t o neutr al i ze the ef fec tof. 7. t o confut e; t o di s pr ove.Wil liams–Page12

N OA H W EB ST ER , W EB ST ER ’ S N EW T W ENT I ETH C ENT URY D I C TI ON ARY O F TH E E NGL I SH L AN GU AG E U NA B R I DG ED 4 9 5 (2d ed . 1 9 8 3 ). N o t o n e o f

W e b s te r’ s d e f

in itio n s m e n tio n s a c o m p le te la c k o f p h y s ic a l e x is te n c e . A d e m o lish e d , ru in e d , o r k ill e d th in g still h a s re m a in s. A n d , co n tra ryto th e d e f in iti o n in Spector , t he r emai ns of a de s t r oy ed obj ectcan s t i l l have e vi dent i aryval ue. W e i nt erpr et s e c tio n 3 7 .0 9 (a )( 1 ) t o m e a n th a t a d e s tr o y e d th in g h a s b e e n ru in e d a n d re n d e re d u s e le s s . T h is in te rp re ta tio n o f

“ d e s tr o y ” is , a s re q u ir e d , d is tin c t f ro m “ c o n c e a l” a n d f

ro m “ a lte r,”
w hi ch W ebs t er ’ s D i ct i onarydefi nes as : “t o change ; m ake di ffe r ent ; m odi fy . ” I d. a t 5 2 . M oreove r, ou r i nterpret at i on of d estroy ed to m ean rui ned and rendered usel ess echoes a fac t ors ugges t ed byt he St at e i n Spectorand the courtof appe al s i n t hi s cas e: thata thi ng is d e s tr o y e d w h e n it h a s lo s t its id e n tity a n d is n o lo n g e r r e c o g n iz a b le . Wi l l i a ms , 2007 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 8 9 2 a t * 9 ; Spector , 746 S. W . 2d at945- 46. I n thi s cas e, t he cr ack pi pe w as rui ned and r ender ed us el es s w hen A ppel l ant ste p p e d o n it an d b ro k e it i n to p iec e s. O f f ice r S to w e tes tifie d th a t h e w a s u n a b le to re triev e e v e ryp iec e o f

th e sh a ttere d c ra c k p ip e , an d e v e n if th e re c o v e re d p iec e s c o u ld have be en gl ued t ogetheri n an att empt t o r econs t ructthe evi dence t o i t s form erphy s i cal s t at e, i tw oul d be l es s t han a c om pl et e cr ack pi pe. T hatthe St at e i ntr oduced the r ecove r ed pi ece s onl yaft ers how i ng a compl et e cr ack pi pe as a demonstr at i ve exhi bi ti ndi cat es t hat the gl as s s har ds and coppe rm es h fi l t erhad l os tthei ri dent i t yas a cr ack pi pe and w er e not r ecogni zabl e as a cr ack pi pe. T her efor e, the cr ack pi pe w as des t r oy ed.Wil liams–Page13

VI . CO NC L US I ON C ons i der i ng t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he j ury ’ s ver di ct , a r at i onal j ur ycoul d have f

ound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatA ppel l antdes t r oy ed a c r ack pi pe, know i ng a w eapons i nves t i gat i on w as i n pr ogr es s , w i t h i nt entt o i m pai ri t s avai l abi l i t yas e v id e n c e in th e in v e s tig a tio n . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls is a f

f ir m e d .

M e y e r s , J .

D el i ver ed: N ovember26, 2008 P ub l i sh