U nder the Tex as Hea lt h & Safety Cod e, a person commi ts an offense i f the person 1 k n o win gl y o r i n t e n t io n a ll y p o s s e s s e s a c o n t ro ll e d su b s t a n c e li s t e d in P e n a lt y G ro u p 1
. T e x. Health & Safety C ode Ann. § 481 .11 5(a) (Vernon 200 3). Metham phe tam ine falls w ithin NO. 07-06 -041 6-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER10, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ DW AIN L. PRUIT T , APPE LLA NT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 5-40 9,1 62; HON. BRADLEY S. UN DERW OOD, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORA NDUM OPINION Appel lan t D w ain L. Pr uitt app e a ls f ro m hi s c onv icti on by j ur y of the o ffense of posse ssion of

met ham phe tam ine an d his resulting sent ence conf ining him to th e Sta te Jail Facility of the T exas Departm entof Cri min al Justice fo r a p eriod of tw ent y -four m ont hs. 1t h is p e n a lt y gro u p a n d p o s s e s s io n i n a n a m o u n tle s s t h a n o n e gra m is a st a t e ja il fe lo n y.

Tex . H eal th &Safety

C ode An n. § 481.115 (b ). SeeTex . H eal th &Safety C ode An n. § 481.115 (a ) (V er non 200 3)
. This i s a st ate 2 jai l felony

puni shabl e by

impri sonmentin a s tate jai l facil ity for a ny ter m of not more tha n two y ears or les s t han 180 days a nd a fine notto ex ceed $10,000
. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12 .35 (Vernon 200 7). 2 On ap pea l, app ellantchallen ges the legal and factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort hi s c on v i cti on . W e affi r m. By indi ctment , appell ant w as charg ed w it h i ntent ion all y and know ing ly

pos ses si ng methampheta mine in an amountl ess than one g ra m. Co n tr ar y to his pl ea, a fter t he 2 ev ide nce w as present ed, t he j ur y fo u n d a p p e ll ant g uil ty of the o ffense charg ed i n the ind ictment. F oll ow ing a pu nis hment he a rin g, th e co urt as ses sed puni shmentas note d. App ellanttimely filed notice of app eal. Factual Bac kg ro und The Stat e’s ca se w as present ed th ro ug h the tes ti mony of a Lubbo ck

pol ic e off ic er and t he St ate’ s c hemis t. Appel lan t present ed hi s c ase throug h c ro ss -e xaminati on of the Stat e’s w it ness es. Tr ial tes ti mony sh ow ed th at du ri ng the ear ly mor nin g hours o f Apri l 25, 2 0 0 5 , t h e o f

f ic e r wa s o n p a t ro l a n d d ro ve t h ro u gh t h e p a rk in g l o to f a t ru c kst o p . He sa w a 1982 C hevy

Bl az er “ pul led up in- between” two semi -t ra il ers in “a real dar k p art of the par ki ng lot .” Thi s s tr uck

the off ic er

as odd so he i nit ia te d a c h e cko n the Bl az er ’s tag and approache d i t. Sl eepi ng i nsi de th e v ehi cl e w as an indi v idu al, i denti fied attr ial as appel lan t. On th e v e h i c l e ’ s d a s h b o a rd t h e o ffi c e r s a w two g l a s s p i p e s , w h i c h h e b e l i e v e d t o b e u sed for s moki ng methamphet amine, and a s mall “ bow l obj ect ” cont ain ing a pl ast icbag g y .At trial, the of f icer testif ied th at th e results of a f ield testh e c o n d u c t ed o n this 3 subst ance w ere po sitiv e for the p resen ce of narcotics. T h e pi p e s a ct u a lly ap p e a r to be two le n gth s o f glas s t u b in g. 4 3 The off ic er

kn ock ed on the w ind ow tw ic e to aw aken a p p e lla nt an d req uest ed ide nti ficat ion
. The off ic er tes ti fied th at as he searched for his ide nti ficat ion , app ell ant n oti ced the g l a s s p i p e s o n t h e d a s h b o a rd , c a s u a l l y g ra b b e d t h e m, a n d t h re w t h e m o n t o t he floor board on the o ther si de of t he v ehi cl e. The off ic er ar re ste d appel lan t and recov ered th e pip es, a ba g co ntai nin g w hit e resi due, and a blu e pl ast icbag g y co ntai nin g a w hit e c rysta l subst ance consiste nt w ith me tha mp het am ine. The pipes and the blu e ba gg y w ere 3 4 admitted i nto e v ide nce. The Tex as Dep artment of Publi c S afetyC ri me Laborator y D iv is ion chem ist testif ied th e sub stan ce con taine d me tha mp het am ine an d w eighed 0 .11 g rams. Appl ic abl e Law Leg al and

Factua l Sufficien cy App ellantasserts throu gh two poin ts of error that the ev iden ce is legally and factu ally insu f f ici e nt t o s uppor

t hi s c onv icti on. Spec ific all y , app ell ant c ontends thatthe chai n of custo dy of the evidence was broken an d con sequen tly , the ev iden ce is tainte d such thatit canno t s uppor

t hi s c onv icti on. In re v iew ing is sues of l eg al suffici ency , an appe ll ate c our t v iews t he ev ide nce in the li g ht mos t fa vorabl e to the v erdict t o det er mine w hether , bas ed on that ev ide nce and reaso nab le inferen ce the ref rom, a rationa l jury could have foun d each elem entof the of fense bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Swear ing en v . St ate, 101 S.W .3d 89, 95 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3);4

Con ner v. Sta te, 67 S .W .3d 1 92, 1 97 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001) , citi ng Jack son v. Vi rgini a, 443 U. S. 3 07, 3 19, 9 9 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979)
. If, g iv en al l of the ev ide nce, a rati onal j ur y w ou l d ne c es s ar i l y en te rta i n a rea s on ab l e do ub t of th e de fen da nt ’ s g ui l t, due process re q uires that w e rev erse and order a j udg ment of ac q uittal
. Swear ing en, 101 S.W .3d a t 95, citi ng Nar vai z v. Sta te, 840 S.W .2d 4 15, 4 23 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , cer t. denied, 507 U. S. 975 ,11 3 S.Ct. 1 422 , 122 L.Ed .2d 791 (1993 ). A factua l suffici ency

rev iew of the ev ide nce is “ barely di sti ng uis habl e” from t he l eg al suf f iciency rev iew

und er Jackson v. Virginia
. Ma r s h a l l v . Sta te , 2 1 0 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 25 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). Af actu al suf f iciency rev iew

conside rs w het her the ev iden ce supp orting g uilt, tho ugh legally suf f icient, is so w eak th at th e j u ry’ s ve rdict seem s clearly w rong and m anifestly unju st, or evi den ce con trary to the v erdict is su ch tha t the jury ’s v erdict is ag ain st the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Id.;Watson v . St ate , 204 S
. W
. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4 - 1 5 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2006) ; Johns on v . St ate , 23 S.W .3d 1 , 11 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. In a factual suffici ency rev iew , we ag ain co nsi der al l the e v ide nce, but n ow i n a n eutral li g ht. Ma rs hall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625 ; W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414
. Al thoug h an appel lat e c our t’s a u th o rit y

to re v iew

factual su ff ic ien cy

per mits the cour

t t o dis ag re e w it h the fact fin der ’s determi nati ons, ev en to a li mite d deg re e tho se conc er nin g the w eig ht and credi bil ity

of the ev ide nce, the appel lat e c our t mus t ac cord the m due de ferenc e. Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625 ; Johns on , 23 S.W .3d at 9. W hen there is a co n f lic t in the e vid e n c e , t o f in d itfa ct u a ll y in s u f f ic ie n twe m u s tf irs tb e a b le t o sa y, wit h so m e o bje ct ive basi s i n the record, that the great w eig ht and preponderance of all the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdict. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 417
.5 Ana lysis Authen ti cat ion of ph y si cal ev ide nce re q uires ide nti ficat ion by “ ev ide nce suffici ent t o suppo rta find ing thatthe matter i n q uest ion i s w hat i ts proponen t cla im s. ” Tex . R . Ev id. 901( a)
. It is w it hin the tr ial cour t’ s dis creti on to deter mine the suffici ency of th e pre d ic ate. Sm it h v . St ate, 683 S.W .2d 3 93, 4 05 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984)
. Onc e the prop o n e nt of the ev ide nce meets the threshol d req uirement of present ing tes ti mony thatthe ev ide nce is w hat the p ro ponent says i t i s, the weig ht g iv en to the ev ide nce and re lat ed tes ti mony is w it hin the prov inc e o f

t h e t rier of fact. See Dav is v. Sta te, 992 S.W .2d 8 , 11- 12 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 Dist.] 1996 , no pe t.). st Cha in of cust ody

i s e sta bli shed if tes ti mon y is entered es tabl is hin g thatan o ff ic er seized the evidence , tagged it, placed an iden tif y ing mark on it, place d the ev iden ce in sto ra g e, and retr iev ed it for tr ial
. Davis, 992 S.W .2d a t 10- 11; Avi la v. State, 18 S .W .3d 7 36, 739 (Te x .Ap p.– San Ant onio 200 0, no pet .). For evidence se nt to a labora tory for ana lysis, chai n of cus tody

may be e sta bli shed by

tes ti mony

i ndi cat ing thatthe lab orator y handl ed th e ev ide nce in a manner

si mil ar to the w ay

poli ce pro per ly

handl e ev ide nce w hen t he c hai n of cus tody mustbe d emonst ra ted. Avi la, 18 S .W .3d a t 739 , citin gMe de llin v . St ate, 617 S.W .2d 229 , 232 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 1) (pane l op.). I f there is a break in the c hai n of custo dy, ev en when the ch ain is com plete d into the lab orato ry , the ev iden ce is still prop erly before t he j ur

y for c onsi derati on unl ess the appel lan t shows that the ev ide nce w as tampered w it h or altered. Mo ntgom er y v . St ate, 506 S.W .2d 6 23, 6 24 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1974) ; Juha sz v. State, 827 S.W .2d 3 97 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1992, pet. ref’d) ; Gal leg os v. State, 776 S.W .2d 3 12, 3 15 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 Di st. ] 198 9, no pet. ). See E li zalde v . St ate, N o. th6

05- 07- 00043- CR , 200 8 W L 27915 15 (Tex .App. –Da ll as Jul y 21, 2008, no pet .) ( address ing chai n of cus tody

i n c ontext of ch all eng e to suffici ency of ev ide nce)
. Appel lan t c hal len g es the c hai n of custod y of the methamphet amine. H is arg ument is b a s e d o n st a t e m e n t s m a d e b y t h e o f f ic e r a n d t h e ch e m is td u ri n g t h e ir t e s t im o n y. T he o f f icer described how he p a c k a ged the evidence he retrieved f rom a ppe llant’s v ehicle. State ’s ex hibit 2 is a plastic ba g; ex hibit 4, w hich w as ma rked bu t notof fered , is a bag g y w it h some untes ted re si due; and the methampheta mine in a bl ue bag g y i s e x hib it5. The off ic er

tes ti fied he se ale d ex hib it4 an d ex hib it5 i n ex hib it2 be fore he del iv ered th e it ems t o the proper

ty room. He sai d he seal ed the two it ems i n ex hib it2 “ separatel y .” O n cross ex aminat ion , he ela borated dur ing the follo w ing ex chang e:

Q: D i d I un de rs ta nd you c or rectl y i n s ta ti ng tha t t he s e two i te ms t h a ta re in S t a t e ’s E xh ib it2 , yo u se a le d t h e m se p a ra t e ly? A: Y es , s i r . Y ou c an t el l from t he se am i n- be twee n ( s i c ) t he m. T h e y we re se a le d in d ivi d u a ll y. Q: One on eac h s ide of w hat i s n ow Ex hib it2? A: Yes, sir
. The off ic er further tes ti fied that a sec ond off ic er lat er took the seal ed bag to t he D PS labo ratory. Consiste nt w ith the of f icer’s testimo ny, the chem ist testif ied to the laborat ory ’s receiptof

the item s f rom th e seco nd o f f icer. Th e che mist also testif ied to the lab orato ry ’s procedu re s for the handl ing of ev ide nce submi tted for tes ti ng , and to the re sul ts of hi s t est s on th e i tems submi tted. D ur ing cross examinat ion of the c hemis t, thi s e x chang e oc cur re d:7 Q: H ow were [t he ex hib it s] pla ced in Ex hib it2 w hen you rec ei v ed t he m? A: Th ey w ere in the hea t seale d togeth er. Q: To gether, all togeth er? A: Yes. From th ese two exc ha ng es , ap pe l l an t reaso ns tha t “[s]om ewhere between [t he o f f icer] sec ur ing and seal ing [ th e ex hib it s] separatel y and [the chemi st] recei v ing them at t he Depa rtme nt of

Public Safety Labo ratory, someo ne rese aled [the ex hibits] to get h er.” He conclu des th e inte gr ity

of the evidence was com prom ised, w ith the result that the ev iden ce is i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t t he j udg ment of co nv icti on.
W e c annot ag re e the j ur y w as re q uired to att ach suc h g re at s ig nific ance to t he w ordin g us ed by

the off ic er and the c hemis t. The c hemis t’ s d esc ri pti on of the condi ti on of the i tems is not neces sar il y inc onsi ste nt w it h the off ic er ’s
. Appel lan t’ s a rg ument as sumes a ra ti onal jur

y must hav e percei v ed that the chemi st’ s sta tement meant t he s eal between t he ex hib it s t hat t he officer re ferred to had been breache d w hen ex hib it2 was del iv ered to the lab orator y . The record reflect s t he c hemis t s aid the ex hib it s were “ in the h eat s ealed togeth er.” Ev en when the chem ist then agreed tha t the ex hibits w ere “all togethe r,” the jury coul d hav e tak en hi s s tatementto mean not hin g more tha n the ex hib it s were c ontai ned w it hin the same bag , State’ s ex hib it2. Furt her , nothi ng in the testi mony of the o ff ic er

or the chemi st su gges ts t hat e x hib it2 was opened before t he c hemis t remov ed th e i tems for te st in g.8

The off i c e r

s p e c i fi c a l l y

i d e n t i fi e d e x h i b i t5 a s o n e o f t h e i t e ms re c o v e re d from appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e. Ask ed i f eithe r of the bag g ies had been t ampered w it h or al tered i n any w ay , he answered i n the neg ati v e. Ask ed i f t h e y were i n t h e sa me con dit ion as w hen he tur ned t hem i n to the p ro per ty room, he answered affirmat iv ely
. The chemi st ide ntified ex hib it5 as the bag g y

co ntaini ng the methampheta mine he te ste d, by hi s i nit ial s a nd th e cas e number

on t ape pl aced on th e bag g y . In ad dit ion to the e x chang es ci ted b y appel lan t i n his br ief, w e note an ex chang e tha t occ ur re d as the off ic er

tes ti fied c oncer nin g hi s o peni ng of ex hib it2 atthe ti me of tri al. After he sa id he op ene d the plastic bag w ith a pa ir of scissors, th e record sta tes:

Q: Pr ior to that, w as that bag in the s ame co ndi ti on ot her than , as you s aid , bei ng pac kag ed s omew hat d ifferent? A: Yes, sir , it was. Q : Ha s t h e e vid e n c e b e e n t a m p e re d wit h in a n y wa y? A: No, sir. It is not cl e a r

t o u s w h a tt h e p ro s e c u t o r m e a n tb y

t h e p h ra s e “ p a c k a g e d s o me w h at dif feren t.” From our rev iew of t h e e ntirety of

the te stimo ny, how ever, we be liev e the jury coul d hav e understo od i t t o refer t o the co ndi ti o n o f e xhibit 2 after itretur ned from the lab orator y , w here, of c ourse, i t was opened to pe rmi t t est ing of the c ontent s o f ex hib it5. To re it erate, nothi ng about the tes ti mony w e hav e q uoted sug g est s t hat e x hib it2 ha d bee n op ene d so tha t eithe r of the ba gg ies could have been tam pere d w ith prior to de liv ery9

of t he e x hi bi ts t o th e l ab orat or y . C on s i de r i ng t he e nt i rety o f t he e v i de nc e i n th e l i g htmost favorable to the verdict, w e f ind a ration al jury could ha v e con clude d be y ond a reason able doubt that the s ubst ance the c hemis t found t o be methampheta mine w as the same as that re t r i e v e d f ro m a p p e l l a n t ’ s v e h i c l e b y t h e o f f i c e r . T h e e v i d e n c e wa s l e g a l l ys u f f i c i e n t
. W e f urthe r find thatthe evidence , consid ered in a neu tral lig ht, is neith er so w eak th at th e jury ’s v erdict see ms clea rly

wrong an d ma nifestly un just, or t hate v iden ce cont rary t o the v erdict is su ch that the jur

y ’s v erdict is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. The ev ide nce is al so factual ly su ff ic ien t. Acc ordin g ly , we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ues, and aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Jus ti ce Do not p ubl is h.