1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 223- CR L AR R Y DAL E M CC L E NNY AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA L DI STRI CT CO URT NO . 2 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON A j u ry fo u n d A p p e l l a n t La rryD a l e M c C l e n n yg u i l ty o f p o s s e s s ion o f a c o n t r o lle d s u b s t a n c e , m e t h a m p h e t a m in e (4

– 2 0 0 g r a m s ), a n d a s s e s s e d h is p u n i s h m e n t a t e i g h t y e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t a n d a fi n e o f $ 2 ,5 0 0 . T h e tri a l c o u rt se n ten c e d h i m ac c o rding l y . I n se v e n p o i n ts, M c C l e n n yco m p l a i n s th a t t h e S tate f ai l ed t o pr ovi de hi m t i m el y no t i ceofi t s i nt entt o i nt r oduc e e vi den ceof2

e x tr a n e o u s a c ts, t h a t t h e S tate m a d e i m p rop e r j u ry a rgu m e n ts a t b o th the g u i l tin n o c e n c e a n d p u n is h m e n ts t a g e so ft r ia l, t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rte r r o n e o u s ly in t r o d u c e d e v id e n c e o fa p le a in b a rre s o lu t io n a tt h e p u n is h m e n ts t a g e o ft r ia l, a n d th a t th e e v i d e n c e i sl e g a l l ya n d fa c tu a l l yi n s u fficie n t. W e w i l l a ffir m .

II . F ACTUA LAN D P ROCEDURAL B AC KG ROUND A r oun d 6: 00 one m or ni ng, M cC l enny cal l ed C hr i st oph erSw i nk and asked S w i nk i fhe w ant ed t o buysom e “dope. ” S w i n k dr ove t o M cC l enny’ s m ot el r oom , w her e M cC l enny sol d hi m appr oxi m at el y one gr am o fm et ham phetam i ne, a n d t h e t w o s m o k e d s o m e “ s p e e d .” M c C le n n yt h e n a s k e d S w in kt o d r iv e h im t o a gam e r oom l ocat ed abou tf i ft een m i nutes a w a yfr om M cC l enny’ s m ot el r oom . O n t he w ay t o t he gam e r oom , t he m en not i ce d a pol i ceca rf ol l ow i ng th e m so S w i n kp a rke d i n the g a m e roo m p a rki n g l o t, an d the yq u i c k l yran i n to th e b u i l d i n g . W h i l e th e m e n w e rei n th e g a m ero o m , D e p u ty J o h n K i e fe r ra n S w i n k ’s lic e n s e p la t e a n d d is c o v e r e d t h a tS w in kh a d a n o u t s t a n d in g w a r r a n tf o ra t r a f f ic t i ck et . D epu t y Ki ef erpa r ke d hi s ca rar ound t he cor nerf r om t he gam e r oom an d w a i te d fo r S w i n kto e x i t. S w i nk and M cC l enny st ayed i n t he gam e r oom f orabout t en m i nutes . O n c e the ytho u g h t t h e p o li c e c a r h a d l e ft, the yl e ft th e g a m e roo m to g o to3

ano t herne ar by g am e r oom . They dr ove t o t he se con d gam e r oom , and ast he m en w er e exi t i ng t he t r uck, D eputy Ki ef erpul l ed i n behi nd S w i nk’ s t r uck. D eputy Ki ef ert ol d S w i nk t o w al k t ow ar ds hi m . The dep ut y noti ced t hat M cCl en ny , w ho w ass t and i ng on t he pas se nge rs i de oft he t r ucki ns i de t he ope n doo r , w asl ea ni ng i nt o t he t r uckan d m ak i ng f urt i ve m ove m ent s i n t he pas s e ng e rs i deo ft het r uc k . Dep ut y Chr i s t op he rW i l l i a m s on a r r i ve d t o a s s i st D eputy Ki ef er , and D eputy Ki ef er i nst r uct ed hi m t o w at ch M cC l enny b ecause he w as m ovi ng ar oun d. D eputy W i l l i a m so n a l so observed M cC l enny r each i ns i de t he t r uckt hr ough t he ope n pa ss eng erdoor . The dep ut y “ gl anc ed”i n t he o p e n p a s s e n g e r d o o r a n d s a w a m a rij u a n a ro a c h o n th e p a s s e n g e r fl o o rb o a rd and a bl ack w al l etst uf f ed i n bet w een t he seatcushi on and t he backr est cus hi on oft he pas se nge rsea t . D epu t y W i l l i am so n patt ed dow n M cCl enn y a nd to l d h i m to s ta n d a t th e re a r o f th e tru c k . D eputy K i ef erarr est ed S w i nk f orthe out st andi ng w ar r antand cond uct ed a s ea r ch ofhi s per so n i nci den tt o ar r es t . H e f ound a pi pe, aboutone gr am of cryst al m et ham phetam i ne, and a bag of m ar ij uana on S w i nk’ s per son. H e t hen sear ched S w i nk’ s t r uck a n d fou nd a m ar ij uana r oach l ayi ng on t he passenger f lo o r b o a r d a n d a g la s sp ip e u n d e rt h e p a s s e n g e r s e a t . H ea ls o f o u n d t w o s m a ll contai ner s, a yel l ow an d si l verco nt ai nerand sm al l bl ack bag, st uf f ed bet w een t he seatcushi on and backr esto fthe passenger seat . The con t ai ner s cont ai ned4

o v e rf o u rg r a m so fm e t h a m p h e t a m in e . O n e c o n t a i n e ra l s o h a d a M o t o r o la c e l l u l a r p h o n e b a tte ryi n s i d e . T h e d e p u ti e sth e n a rre s te d M c C l e n n y . A ft erj ury s el ec t i on, t he St at e g aveor alan d w r i tt en not i ce t o M cCl enn y t hati ti nt end e d to cal l Sw i nk t o t est i f y t hatM cC l enny h ad sol d hi m dr ugs an hourbe f or e t he m en w er e a r r es t ed. M cCl enn y obj ec t ed t hatt he St at e d i d not p ro v i d e h i m a d e q u a te n o ti c e o f i ts i n te n t to i n tro d u c e e v i d e n c e o ft h is e x tr a n e o u s o ffen se . T h e S tate arg u e d th a t i t did n o t i n fo rm M c C l e n n yp ri o r t o t r i alt hatSw i nk w oul d bea w i t nes s bec aus e i tdi d nott al k t o Sw i nk unt i l t he day befor e t r i al . The S t at e f urt herar gued th a t S w i nk’ s t est i m ony w as adm i ss i bl e a s sam e t r ans ac t i on e vi den cean d t o r ebu tM cCl enn y’ s def ens i ve th e o ry th a t t h e d rug s b e l o n g e d to S w i n k . T h e tr i a l c o u rtp e rm i tted S w i n kto te s ti fya n d g ra n te d th ed e fe n s e a ru n n i n g o bj e c ti o n to h i ste s ti m o n y . Sw i nk t es t i f i ed t hatM cCl enn y cal l ed hi m t o a ski fhew ant ed t o buys om e dr ugs , t hatSw i nk agr eed and pu r cha se d s om e “ sp ee d”f r om M cCl enn y, an d th a t h e t h e n d ro v e M c C l e n n yto th e tw o g a m e ro o m sb e fo reth e yb o th w e re ar r est ed. S w i nk al so t est i f i ed t hat aft er t hey w er e ar r est ed and i n t he squad car t ogether , he asked M cC l enny, “[ W ] hatdi d you do w i t h you rdope[ ?] ” t o w hi ch M cC l enny r espond ed, “D on’ tw or ry abou ti t . I hi d i t . ” The St at e a l so ca l l ed D epu t i esKi ef eran d W i l l i am so n t o t es t i f y a boutt he ar r es tan d s ea r ch and ca l l ed a f or ens i c c hem i stw ho pr es ent ed exp ertt es t i m ony5

t hatt he subst ances f oun d i n t he t w o contai ner s i n S w i nk’ s t r uck contai ned m et ham phetam i ne. III. E XTRAN E OUS B AD A CT S E VIDENCE I n M cCl enn y’ s f i r st p oi nt , heco nt end s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by al l ow i ng Sw i nk t o t est i f y t hatM cC l enny sol d S w i nk dr ugs short l y bef or e t hey w e re a rr e ste d b e c a u se the S tate d i d n o t pro v id e t im e lyn o ti c e o f i ts i n ten t t o i n tro d u c e th i se v i d e n c e i n a c c o rd a n c e w i th T e x a sR u l e o f E v i d e n c e 4 0 4 (b ). S ee T e x . R . E v i d . 4 0 4 (b ) (req u i ri n g re a s o n a b l e n o ti c e in a d v a n c e o f tri a l o f S ta te ’s i nt entt o i nt r oduc e ext r ane ousof f ens e e vi den ce ) . The St at e d oesnotco nt end t hatt he noti ce w as t i m el y but ar gues t hati tw as notr equi r ed t o gi ve noti ce unde rr ul e 404( b) be ca us e t he evi den cew asad m i ss i bl e a s sam e t r ans ac t i on con t ext ualev i den cean d be ca us e i tw asof f er ed t o r ebu tM cCl enn y’ s def ens i ve t heor y. A l t er nat i vel y, t he S t at e ar gues t hatany er r orw as har m l ess. W e w i l l as su m e, w i t houtde ci di ng, t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by a dm i tt i ng S w i nk’ s t est i m ony that M cC l enny sol d hi m dr ugs t he day of M cC l enny’ s ar r est and app l y a h ar m an al ysi s. Er r ori n adm i tt i ng evi dence w i t h i nsuf f i ci entnot i ce u n d e r ru l e 4 0 4 (b ) i sn o n c o n s ti tu ti o n a l e rro r. S e eHerna n dez v. S tate , 176 S .W .3 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 5 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); A l lenv. S tate , 202 S. W . 3d 364, 3 6 9 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 6 , p e t . r e f ’d ). T h e r e f o r e , w e a p p lyru le 44 . 2( b) and di sr egar d t he er r ori fi td i d not af f ectM cC l enny’ s subst ant i al r i ghts .6

T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 4 .2 (b ); se eMo sle yv. S tate , 983 S . W . 2d 249, 259 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), cert. denied, 5 2 6 U .S . 1 0 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ); Cogg esh a l

l v. S tate , 961 S. W . 2d 639, 642– 43 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h 1998, p e t. re f’d ). A sub stant i alr i ghti s af f ec t ed w hen t he er r orha d a s ubs t ant i alan d i n j u ri o u se ffe c t o r i n fl u e n c e i n d e te rm i n i n g th e j u ry ’sv e rd i c t. K i ngv. S tate , 953 S. W . 2d 266, 271 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1997 ) ( ci t i ng Kotteakos v. United S tates , 3 2 8 U .S . 7 5 0 , 7 7 6 , 6 6 S . C t. 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 5 3 (1 9 4 6 )); Cogg esh a ll, 961 S. W . 2d a t6 4 3 . C o n v e r s e ly , a n e r r o rd o e sn o ta f f e c ta s u b s t a n t ia l r ig h tifw e h a v e “ f a ir a s s u ra n c e th a t th e e rro r d i d n o t i n fl u e n c e t h e ju ry , o r h a d b u t a s l i g h t e ffe c t.” So lo m o nv. S tate , 4 9 S .W .3 d 3 5 6 , 3 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Johnson v. S tate , 9 6 7 S .W .2 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). The l ac k o fnot i ceunde rr ul e 404( b) i s har m f ul i ft he com pl ai ned
- of e v i d e n c e a ffe c te d th e d e fe n d a n t’sa b i l i ty to m o u n t a n a d e q u a te d e fe n s e . S ee Her nandez , 176 S. W . 3d at825– 26. A def end antm ay dem ons t r at e s ur pr i seby sh o w i n g h o w h i s d e fen se strate g ym i g h t ha v eb e e n d i ffe re n t ha d the S tate expl i ci t l y noti f i ed hi m t hati ti nt ended t o of f erthe extr aneou s of f ense evi dence. Id. a t 8 2 6 ; A l

len , 202 S. W . 3d at369. I n de t er m i ni ng w het herev i den ceha d a s u b s ta n ti a l i n fl u e n c e o n t h e v e rd i c t, w e re v i e w th e re c o rd a sa w h o l e . S ee Johnson , 967 S. W . 2d a t417.7

I n t hi s ca se , M cCl enn y m adeno a r gum entatt r i al , and m ak esno a ss ert i on o n ap p e a l , th a t he w a s “ su rpri se d ” b ythe S tate ’s d e c i sion to c a l l S w inkto t e s t if yt h a th e p u r c h a s e d d r u g s f r o m M c C le n n ya b o u ta n h o u rb e f o r e t h e ir a rre s ts . See Her

nandez , 17 6 S . W . 3d at8 25 . Furt her , M cC l enny f ai l ed t o m ake anys how i ng ofhow h i s def ens e s t r at egym i ghtha ve bee n di f f er entha d t he St at e e xpl i ci t l y no t i f i ed hi m t hati ti nt end ed t o of f ert he com pl ai ned
- of te s ti m o n ya t tri a l o r h o w h i sd e fe n s e w a s“ i n j u ri o u s l y ” a ffe c te d b yth e S ta te ’s fa i l u reto p ro v i d e re a s o n a b l e n o ti c e . S ee i d. at82 6. A ft err ecei vi ng or al not i ce o n th e d a yo f tri a l , M c C l e n n yd i d n o t m o v e fo r a c o n ti n u a n c e o f th e tri a l. D u r in g c r o s s -e x a m in a t io n o fS w in k , M c C le n n y ’s d e f e n s e a tt o r n e ys u c c e s s f u lly es t abl i sh ed t hatSw i nk had h oped heco ul d ge thi s se nt enc e “ cuti n ha l f ” by t e s t if y in g a g a in s tM c C le n n y . S w in kt e s t if ie d o n c r o s s -e x a m in a t i o n t h a th is att or ney ha d to l d h i m t he ni ght bef or e M cC l enny’ s t r i al t hatM cC l enny “w as try i n g to b l a m e a l l th e d o p e o n m e ” a n d tha t he “d i d n ’tfee l g o o d [ a b o u t t h a t] a t a l l .” W e c onc l udet hat , i n t he con t ext of t he ent i r e ca se aga i ns tM cCl enn y, t he t r i al court ’ s er r or , i f any , i n adm i tt i ng S w i nk’ s t est i m ony d i d not have a su b sta n t i al ori nj ur i ous ef f ecton t he j ur y’ s ver di ctand di d not af f ect M c C l e n n y ’ss u b s ta n ti a l ri g h ts . S ee i d. a t 8 2 5

– 2 6 ; Ki

ng , 953 S. W . 2d a t271.8

T h u s , w e d is r e g a r d a n ye rro r. S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 4 .2 (b ). W e o v e r r u le M c C l e n n y ’s fi rst po i n t. I V. J URY A RG UMENT M cC l enny’ s second, thi r d, an d f ourt h poi nt s com pl ai n ofal l eged i m pr oper a rgu m e n ts m a d e b ythe S tate i n i ts c l o sing ar g u m e n t at b o th the g u i l tin n o c e n c e a n d p u n is h m e n ts t a g e so ft r ia l. A . L aw on J ury Ar gum ent To be per m i ss i bl e, t he St at e’ s j ury ar gum entm us tf al l w i t hi n oneoft he f o llo w in g f o u rg e n e r a l a r e a s : ( 1 ) s u m m a t io n o ft h e e v id e n c e ; ( 2 ) r e a s o n a b le ded uct i on f r om t he evi den ce ; ( 3) an sw ert o a r gum entofoppo si ng c ouns el ; or (4 ) p le a f o rla w e n fo rc e m e n t. Felder v. S tate , 848 S . W . 2d 85, 94–9 5 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ), cert. denied, 5 1 0 U .S . 8 2 9 (1 9 9 3 ); A le j an dro v. S tate , 493 S .W .2 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 3 ). T o d e te r m in e w h e th e r a p a rty ’s ar gum entpr ope r l y f al l s w i t hi n oneoft hes e c at ego r i es , w e m us tco ns i dert he a rg u m e n t i n l i g h t o f th e re c o rd a sa w h o l e . W i l so nv. S tate , 938 S. W . 2d 57, 6 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), a b roga ted o no th er groun ds b yMo ti l l av. S tate , 78 S .W .3 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 7 (T e x . C ri m A p p . 2 0 0 2 ).

B. Jury A r gum entatG ui l t - I nno cence S t age not I m pr oper M c C l e n n yc o m p l a i n si n h is s e c o n d a n d th i rd p o i n tsth a t th e tri a l c o u rt er r ed by den yi ng hi s r equest s f orm i st r i al s w hen t he p ros e c ut orassert ed her9

p e r s o n a l o p in io n d u r in g c lo s in g a r g u m e n t a t t h e g u ilt -in n o c e n c e s t a g e o ft r ia l. D u ri n g c l o s i n g a rg u m e n t, th e p ro s e c u to r s ta te d , S o w e h av e b r ou gh tyo u e ve rythi ng , ev en off i ce r s w ho co uld n ’t re m e m b e r a n y th i n g a n d e v e n a c o d e fe n d a n t w h o o u r c a s e d o e s n ’t dep end on. Butw e w ant ed t o gi ve you t he bi g pi ct ur e, ev eryt hi ng w e h a v e . A n d tha t’ s w h a t yo u h a v e . W e d o n ’th a v e an y th i n g to hi de because we kn owand the evidence shows that

– [E m p h a s is a d d e d .] T h e tri a l c o u rt s u s ta i n e d M c C l e n n y ’so bj e c ti o n “ to w h a t th e p ro s e c u to r k n o w s ,” i ns t r uct ed t he j ury t o di sr ega r d t he com m ent , but den i ed M cCl enn y’ s m ot i on f or m i st r i al . The pr os ec ut orco nt i nue d, “ W e b el i evean d i t ’ s –, ” t o w hi ch M cCl enn y aga i n obj ec t ed t hatt he com m entw as i m pr ope r . The t r i al cou rt i ns t r uct ed t he pr osecut or t o base her com m ent s on t he t est i m ony r at hert han per sonal bel i ef a n d d e n ie d M c C le n n y ’s s e c o n d m o t io n f o rm is t r ia l. I ti s w el l s ett l ed t hatt he pr os ec ut or m ay ar gue her opi ni onsco nce r ni ng i ss uesi n t he ca ses o l ong a s t he opi ni onsar e b as ed on t he evi den cei n t he r ec or d and do n otco ns t i t ut e u ns w or n t es t i m ony. Mc Ka yv. S tate , 707 S. W . 2d 2 3 , 3 7 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ), cert. denied, 4 7 9 U .S . 8 7 1 (1 9 8 6 ); Si kes v. S tate , 5 0 0 S .W .2 d 6 5 0 , 6 5 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 3 ); Pen ri c ev. S tate , 716 S .W .2 d 1 0 7 , 1 0 9 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 8 6 , n o p e t.). H er e, al t hough t he pr os ec ut or di d not com pl et e ei t heroft he com pl ai ned
ofar gum ent s bef ore M cCl enn y obj ec t ed, t he con t extofhe rar gum ent10

dem ons t r at est hats he w asatt em pt i ng t o s t at e h eropi ni on, ba se d up on t he e v i d e n c e i n th e re c o rd , th a t th e d ru g s fo u n d i n th e p a s s e n g e r s i d e o f S w i n k ’s t r uck bel ong ed t o M cC l enny. Sh e m ade t hese st at em ent s att he end of her cl osi ng st at em ent , aft ersum m ar i zi ng t he evi dence, and i n t he context o f an a n a l y s i so f th e e v i d e n c e . See Si kes , 5 0 0 S .W .2 d a t 6 5 2 ; se e al soThi boultv. S tate , N o . 0 2 -0 6 -0 0 4 4 9 -C R , 2 0 0 8 W L4 5 7 5 7 , a t * 4

– 5 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h Jan . 3, 2008 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . o p., notde si gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) ( hol di ng t h a tp r o s e c u t o r ’s o p in io n t h a td e f e n d a n tw a s g u ilt y w a sp r o p e rw h e n g iv e n in c o n tex t of a n a l y sis o f t h e ev i d e n c e ). M o reo v e r, the co m p l a i n e d -of sta tem e n ts d i d n o t i n j e c t n e w fa c tsi n to e v i d e n c e t h a t w e reh a rm fu l t o M c C l e n n y , n o r w e re t hey m ani f est l y unj ust , nor d i d they i ndi cat e t hatt he pr osecut orpossessed i ndep enden tf act s ofM cC l enny’ s gui l tt hatw er e noti nt r odu ced i nt o evi dence. Se e Jo n es v. S tate , 8 4 3 S .W .2 d 9 2 , 1 0 0 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s1 9 9 2 , p e t. re f’d ); Penri ce , 7 1 6 S .W .2 d at 1 0 9 . C o n se q u e n tl y , th e p ros e c u to r’ s i n c o m p l e te ar gum ent s w er e not i m pr oper or har m f ul even t hou gh t he t r i al courtsust ai ned M c C l e n n y ’so bj e c ti o n sto th e m . A ccord McKay , 707 S. W . 2d a t37. Fi nal l y, even i ft h e ar gum ent s w er e i m pr oper , w e hol d t hatt he t r i al cou rt ’ s i ns t r uct i onst o di sr ega r d t hem w er e s uf f i ci entt o cur e anyha r m i nur i ng to M c C l e n n y . See i d. O nl y i n ext r em e ci r cum stan c e s, w h en t he pr ej udi ce caused by t he i m pr ope r ar gum enti s i ncur abl e, i . e. , “so pr ej udi ci al t hat11

e x p e n d i tu re o f fu rth e r ti m e a n d e x p e n s e w o u l d b e w a s te fu l a n d fu ti l e ,” w i l l a m is tri a l b e re q u i re d . Ha wki n s v. S tate , 13 5 S. W . 3d 72 , 77 ( Te x . Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 4 ); se eSi

mp so nv. S tate , 1 1 9 S .W .3 d 2 6 2 , 2 7 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. deni

ed, 542 U . S. 905 ( 200 4) . The ar gum ent s i n t he i ns t antca se , i n a ny e v e n t, w e re n o t s o i n c u ra b l e a sto re q u i rea m i s tri a l . W e o v e rru l e M c C l e n n y ’s second and t hi r d poi nt s.

C . Jury A r gum entatPun i shm entStage notI m pr oper I n M cCl enn y’ s f ourt h poi nt, h e ar gue s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by ove r r ul i ng hi s obj ec t i on t o t he pr os ec ut or ’ s cl os i ng a r gum entatt he puni sh m ent st age oft r i al . The St at e contends t hat t he pr osecut or ’ s ar gum entw as i nvi t ed b yd e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’sc l o s i ng a rg u m e n t a n d , c o n s e q u e n tl y , th a t th e p ro s e c u to r’s ar gum entw asj us t i f i ed and pe r m i ss i bl e a s an ans w ert o t he argu m entof o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l . A tt he pun i shm entst age oft r i al , t he S t at e i nt r o d uced evi dence t hat M cCl enn y pr evi ous l y ha d pl ea ded gui l t y t o t hr eef el ony of f ens es . Dur i ng def ense coun sel ’ s cl osi ng ar gum ent , he ar gued t hatt he t hr ee pr i orgui l t y pl eas w e r e a ll p u r s u a n tt o p le a b a r g a in sa n d t h a tt h e S t a t e h a d a g r e e d t o m in im a l ja il t i m e a s partoft he pl ea ba r gai ns . Conse que nt l y, hear gue d t ha tb ec aus e t he St at e h ad agr ee d t o l eni ents ent enc esi n M cCl enn y’s p astca se s, M cCl enn y sh oul d r ec ei ve a l ow s ent enc e i n t hi s ca se. Dur i ng t he St at e’ s cl os i ng12

a rg u m e n t, th e p ro s e c u to r e x p l a i n e d t h a t i f th e S ta te m a k e sa p l e a b a rg a i n o ffe r, th e o ffe r i s“ u s u a l l yl o w e r th a n w e th i n ka j u ryis g o in g t o g i v e a p e rs o n .” D ef ense counsel obj ect ed t hat“t he pr osecut ori s i nt erj ect i ng herper sonal f ee l i ngsi n t he ca se , ” and t he t r i alco urtove r r ul ed hi s obj ec t i on. A n sw e ri n g o p p o sing c o u n se l ’s a rgu m e n t i s n o t i m p rop e r j u ry a rgu m e n t. Felder, 8 4 8 S .W .2 d a t 9 4

– 9 5 ; A le j an dro , 493 S. W . 2d a t231. I fd ef ense cou ns eli nvi t est he ar gum ent , t he n t he S t at e i s al l ow ed t o r es pond t o t he d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’sa rg u m e n t. A l b i a r v. S tate , 7 3 9 S . W . 2 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 2 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 8 7 ); L a sh er v. S tate , 202 S. W . 3d 292, 298 ( Te x. App . — W a c o 2006, p e t. re f’d ). H er e, aft erdef ense coun sel i nf or m ed t he j ur y t hatt he S t at e had agr eed t o l ow ersent ences i n M cC l enny’ s pastcases, t he pr osecut or o ff er ed an expl anat i on as t o w hy t he S t at e w oul d agr ee to a l eni entsent ence i n a pl eab a r g a in e d c a s e . B ye x p la in in g t h a tt h e S t a t e ’s p le a b a r g a in o f f e ris“ u s u a lly l ow ert han w e th i n ka j ur y i s goi ng t o gi ve a per son, ” t he pr osecut orw as re s p o n d i n g to d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’s a rg u m e n t. T h u s , w e h o l d th a t th e p ro s e c u to r’s a r g u m e n tw a sp e r m is s ib le b e c a u s e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l o p e n e d t h e d o o rb yh is ar gum ent and t hat t he t r i al cou rt di d not er r by ove r r ul i ng M cCl enn y’ s obj ec t i on. SeeA l bi ar, 7 3 9 S .W .2 d a t 3 6 2 ; Lasher, 2 0 2 S .W .3 d a t2 9 8 . W e o v e r r u le M c C l e n n y ’s fou rt h p o i n t.13 V. A DMI SSI ON OF P L EA I N B AR R E SOL UTI ON I n M cCl enn y’ s f i ft h poi nt , hecont end s t he t r i alcourter r ed by a dm i tt i ng S t a t e ’s E x h ib it s8 a n d 1 0 in t o e v id e n c e d u r in g t h e p u n is h m e n ts t a g e o ft h e t r ia l. St at e’ s Exhi bi t8 w asa pl ea i n ba rr esol uti on o ft he of f ens e o fdr i vi ng w i t h a su sp end ed l i ce ns e, an d St at e’ s Exhi bi t10 w as a pl ea i n ba rr es ol ut i on oft he of f ens e o ff or gery bypos sessi on ofa che ckw i t h i nt entt o pa ss . M cCl enn y o bj e c te d to th e s e e x h i b i tsb e c a u s e th e yw e ren o t fi n a l c o n v i c ti o n sb u t w e re p l e a d e d a n d b a rre d p u rs u a n t to s e c t io n 1 2 .4 5 o f th e T e x a sP e n a l C o d e . S ee T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 1 2 .4 5 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). A . St andar d ofRev i ew Th i s courtr evi ew s t he t r i al court ’ s deci si on t o ad m i tevi dence un deran a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd . Greenv. S tate , 934 S . W . 2d 92, 101– 02 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), cert. denied, 5 2 0 U .S . 1 2 0 0 (1 9 9 7 ); Mo n tg o m ery v. S tate , 810 S. W . 2d 372, 391 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1991 ) (op . o n r eh’ g) . A s l ong a s t he t r ia l c o u rt ’s ru lin g f a llsw it h in t h e z o n e o fre a s o n a b le d is a g r e e m e n t , w e w ill a ffir m i tsd e c i s i o n . Mo ses v. S tate , 105 S . W . 3d 622, 627 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 3) . The t r i alco urt ’ s dec i si on m ustber ea so nab l e i n vi ew ofal l r el eva nt fa c ts . San tel

l anv. S tate , 939 S . W . 2d 155 , 169 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 199 7) . The m e refa c t th a t a tri a l c o u rt m a yd e c i d e a m a tte r w i th i n i tsd i s c re ti o n a ry aut hor i t y i n a di f f er entm annert han an app el l at e courtw oul d i n a si m i l ar14

ci r cum st anc e d oesnotde m ons t r at e t hatan ab us e o fdi sc r et i on ha s occ ur r ed. Manni ngv. S tate , 1 1 4S .W .3 d 9 2 2 , 9 2 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). B. Adm i ss i bi l ity ofPl eai n BarEvi den ceatPuni sh m entSt age S ect i on 1 2. 45 per m i t s a t r i al court t o t ake i nt o accoun tan unadj udi cat ed of f ens e w hen as se ss i ng pu ni sh m enti ft he St at e c ons ent s and t he def end ant a d m i ts th e o ffe n s e . T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 1 2 .4 5 (a )– (b ). W h e n t h e c o u rt does so, t he S t at e i s barr ed f r om pr osecut i ng t he accused f ort he of f ense t aken i n to a c c o u n t u n d e r th i sp ro v i s i o n . Id. § 1 2 .4 5 (c ). S ect i on 12 . 45 does notr equi r e t hata def endan tpl ead gui l t y t o an una d j u d i c a t e d o f f e n s e ; r a t h e r , t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e st h a tt h e d e f e n d a n t , d u r i ng th e p u n i s h m e n t h e a ri n g , a d m i t g u i l t to th e u n a d j u d ic a te d o ffe n s e . Zapa ta v. S tate , 9 0 5 S .W .2 d 1 5 , 1 6 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u sC h ri s ti1 9 9 5 , n o p e t.). Fol l ow i ng Te xa s C ourtofCr i m i nalA ppe al s pr ec ede nti n L op ez v. S tate , 253 S . W . 3d 68 0 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 08 ) , t hi s court has hel d t hatof f enses bar r ed unde rs ec t i on 12. 45 ar e nei t herco nvi ct i onsnorpa rtofa def end ant ’ s pr i or c ri m i n a l re c o rd . Ex p arte Kar l son , 2 8 2 S .W .3 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 9 , p e t. re f’d ); see Lopez , 25 3 S . W . 3d at68 6 ( hol di ng t hat ext r ane ous of f ens es t o w hi ch def end antha d a dm i tt ed gui l ti n pr i orpr os ec ut i on w e r e n o tp r i o rc o n v i c t i o n sf o rp u r p o s e o fi m p e a c h m e n ti n s u bs equ ent p ro s e c u ti o n ).15

T h e a d m is s ib ilit yo fe v i d e n c e a tp u n is h m e n tisg u id e d la r g e lyb ya rt ic le 3 7 .0 7 , s e c ti o n 3 o f th e T e x a s C o d e o f C ri m i n a l P ro c e d u re . Ha le yv. S tate , 173 S .W .3 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); seeT e x . C o d e C ri m . P roc . A n n . a rt . 37 . 07 § 3 ( a) ( 1) ( V er non Su pp. 20 08 ) . U ndert hi s sect i on, t he pr osecut i on m ay of f erev i dence o fan ext r ane ouscr i m e o rba d a ctt hati s sh ow n be yond a r ea so nab l e d oubtt o ha ve bee n c om m i tt ed by t he def end antorf orw hi ch he c ou l d beh e l d c r i m i na l l y r e s ponsi bl e. Te x. Cod e Cr i m . Pr oc . Ann . a rt . 37. 07, § 3 (a )(1 ); Haley , 1 7 3 S . W .3 d a t5 1 5 . “ B e f o r e t h e ju ryc a n c o n s id e rt h is e v id e n c e i n a s s e s s i n g p u n i s h m e n t, i t m u s t b e s a ti s fi e d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le dou btt hatt he act s ar e att r i butabl e t o t he def endan t . ” Haley , 1 73 S. W . 3d at 5 1 5 . M c Cl e nn y’ so nl y obj e c t i on a tt r i a l w a st ha tSt a t e ’ sE xh i bi t s8 a nd 10 w er e i nad m i ss i bl e b ec aus e t heyw er e n otpri or c onvi ct i ons . He di d not com pl ai n a tt r i al , an d doe s notar gueon a ppe al , t hatt he St at e f ai l ed t o pr ove beyon d a re a so nabl e doub tt hatt he act s w er e att r i butabl e t o hi m ort hat evi dence of t hese act s w as i r r el evant . The f actt hatM cC l ennyh a d not been fi n a l l y c o n v i c te d o f th e tw o p l e a d e d a n d b a rre d o ffe n s e sd o e sn o t m a tte r. S ee Haley , 1 7 3 S .W .3 d at 5 1 4

– 1 5 . A c c o rding l y , w e o v e rr u l e M c C l e n n y ’s fi fth p o i n t. V I. S UFFICI ENCY OF THE E VIDENCE16

In h iss ix t h a n d s e v e n t h p o in t s , M c C le n n ya r g u e st h a tt h e e v id e n c e is l egal l y and f act ual l y i nsuf f i ci ent t o convi ct hi m of possessi on of a co nt r ol l ed subst ance. A . St andar ds ofRev i ew

1. Legal

Su f f i ci ency S tandard of

Revi ew I n r evi ew i ng t he l ega l su f f i ci enc y oft he evi den cet o s upporta con vi ct i on, w e v ie w a ll o ft h e e v id e n c e in t h e l i g h tm o s tf a v o r a b le t o t h e p r o s e c u t io n in or dert o de t er m i ne w het heran y r ati onal t r i eroff ac tco ul d ha ve f ound t he e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n tso f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. Jacks on v. V ir ginia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Cl a y to nv. S tate , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h i s stan d a rd give s f u l l p l a y to th e res p o n sibi l i ty o f th e tr i e r o f f a c t to r esol ve confl i ct s i n t he t est i m ony, t o w e i gh t he evi dence, and t o dr aw re a s o n a b l e i n fe re n c e sfro m b a s i c fa c tsto u l ti m a te fa c ts . Jacks on , 44 3 U . S . at 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Cl ayton , 235 S . W . 3d at778. The t r i eroff ac ti s t he s o l e j u d g e o f th e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i tyo f th e e v i d e n c e . S eeT e x . C o d e C r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .0 4(V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); Brownv. S tate , 270 S. W . 3d 564, 568 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), cert. denied, 12 9 S . C t . 20 75 ( 20 09 ) . Thu s, w hen perf or m i ng a l ega l s uf f i ci enc y r evi ew , w e m ay not r e- eva l uat e t he w ei ghtan d c re d i b i l i tyo f th e e v i d e n c e a n d s u b s ti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e fa c tfin d e r.17

D e wb erryv. S tate , 4S .W .3 d 7 3 5 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U .S . 1 1 3 1 (2 0 0 0 ). I n s te a d , w e “ d e te rm i n e w h e th e r th e n e c e s s a ry in f e r e n c e sa r e re a s o n a b le b a s e d u p o n t h e c o m b in e d a n d c u m u la t iv e f o r c e o fa ll t he evi dence w hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . ” Hoop er v. S tate , 2 1 4S . W . 3 d 9 , 1 6

– 1 7 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) . We mu s tp r e s u me t hatt he f ac t f i nde rr es ol ved an y c onf l i ct i ng i nf er enc esi n f av or o ft he p ro s e c u ti o n a n d d e fe r to th a t re s o l u ti o n . Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl

ayton , 235 S. W . 3d a t778. 2. Factual

Su f f i ci ency S tandard of

Revi ew W h e n rev i e w in g t h e fac tu a l su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. Nea l v. S tate , 2 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), cert. denied, 129 S . C t. 1 0 3 7 (2 0 0 9 ); Wa tso nv. S tate , 204 S. W . 3d 404, 414 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 6) . W e t hen as k w het hert he evi den ces upport i ng t he con vi ct i on, al t hough le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is n e v e rt h e le s ss o w e a kt h a tt h e f a c t f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is c le a r lyw r o n g a n d m a n if e s t lyu n ju s to rw h e t h e r c o n f lic t in g e v id e n c e s o g r e a t ly o u tw e i g h sth e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e c o n v i c ti o n th a t th e fa c tfin d e r’s d e te rm i n a ti o n i sm a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. L an c o nv. S tate , 253 S. W . 3d 699 , 704 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t414– 15, 417.18

I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e is fa c tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y su f f i ci ent evi den ce , i ti s not e n o u g h tha t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a s u bj e c ti v e l e v e l o f r e a so n a b l e d o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W e c a n n o tc o n c lu d e t h a ta c o n v ic t io n is c le a r ly w r o n g o rm a n if e s t lyu n ju s ts im p lyb e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju ryo rb e c a u s e w e d is a g r e e w it h t h e ju ry ’s r e s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin th e e v i d e n c e . Id . W e m ay nots i m pl y s ubs t i t ut e ou rj ud gm en tf ort he fa c tfin d e r’s . Jo hn so nv. S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Ca in v. S tate , 958 S . W . 2d 404, 407 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 997 ) . Unl es s w e c onc l ude t hati ti s necessary t o cor r ectm ani f esti nj ust i ce, w e m ustg i ve due defer ence t o t he f ac t f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i ons , “ pa rt i c u l a r l yt h o s ed e t e r m i n a t i onsco nce r ni ng t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Johnson , 23 S. W . 3d a t9 . O ur def er enc e i n t hi s r ega r d s af egu ar dst he def end ant ’ s r i ghtt o a t r i alby j ury. Lancon, 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 .

B. Possessi on of a C ontrol l ed S ubst ance To pr ove possessi on ofa cont r ol l ed subst ance, t he S t at e m ustpr ove t hat t he ac cus ed exe r ci se d c on t r ol , m ana gem ent , orca r e o vert he su bs t anc e a nd th a t h e k n e w th e m a tte r p o s s e s s e d w a sc o n tra b a n d . S ee T e x . H e a l th & S a fety C o d e A n n . § 4 8 1 .0 0 2 (3 8 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); Evan s v. S tate , 202 S. W . 3d 1 5 8 , 1 6 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); Po i n dex ter v. S tate , 153 S. W . 3d 402, 40519

(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e a c c u s e d ’sp re s e n c e a t th e l o c a ti o n w e re con t r aba nd i s f ound i s i ns uf f i ci ent , by i t se l f , t o es t abl i sh ac t ualca r e, cu st ody, o r c o n tro l o v e r th e c o n tra b a n d . Evans , 2 0 2 S .W .3 d a t 1 6 2 . B u t th e a c c u s e d ’s pr esence orpr oxi m i t y t o t he contr aband , w hen com bi ned w i t h ot herevi dence, e it h e rd ir e c to rc ir c u m s t a n t ia l, m a ye s t a b lis h t h a te le m e n tb e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Id . Th e evi dence “m ustest abl i sh, t o t he r equi si t e l evel ofconf i dence, th a t th e a c c u s e d ’sc o n n e c ti o n w it h th e d ru g w a sm o reth a n j u s t fo rtu i to u s .” Poi ndexter, 153 S. W . 3d at 405 –40 6 ( ci t i ng Brownv. S tate , 911 S. W . 2d 744, 7 4 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 )). A m ong t he f ac t or s t o beco ns i der ed i n e val uat i ng t he exi st enc e o f af f i r m at i ve l i nksbet w ee n t he ac cus ed and t he cont r aba nd ar e: ( 1) w het hert he def end antw aspr es entw hen t he se ar ch w as e xec ut ed; ( 2) w het hert he c o n tr a b a n d w a s i n p l a i n v i e w ; (3 ) w h e th e r t h e d e fen d a n t w a s i n clos e p rox i m i ty t o a nd ha d a cc es s t o t he con t r aba nd; ( 4) w het her t he def end ant w asunde rt he i nf l uen ceofa con t r ol l ed su bs t anc e w hen ar r es t ed; ( 5) w het hert he def end ant po s s e s s e d ot he rc on t r a ba nd o rc on t r ol l e d s ub s t a nc e sw he n ar r e s t e d; ( 6) w he t he rt hed e f e nd a ntm a dei nc r i m i na t i ng s t a t e m e nt sw he n a r r e s t e d; ( 7) w het hert he d efen dan tatt em pt ed t o f l ee ; ( 8) w het hert he def end antm ade f urt i veg e s t ur e s ; ( 9) w he t he rt he r e w a sa n od oro ft hec on t r aband; ( 10) w het herot herco nt r aba nd ordr ug pa r aph er nal i a w aspr es ent ; ( 11) w het hert he20

d e fe n d a n t o w n e d o r h a d th e ri g h t to p o s s e s st h e p l a c e w h e reth e d ru g sw e re f ou nd ; ( 12) w he t he rt hep l a c e w he r e t hed r ug sw e r e f ou nd w a se nc l os e d; ( 13) w het hert he def end antw ast he dr i veroft he aut om obi l e i n w hi ch t he con t r aba nd w asf ound; ( 14) w het herthe def end antw asf ound w i t h a l ar ge am ountofcash; a nd ( 15) w het hert he con duc toft he ac cus ed i ndi ca t ed a c o n s c i o u s n e s so f g u i l t. Mc Q ua rters v. S tate , 58 S. W . 3d 250, 259 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2001, pe t . r ef ’ d) . I ti s t he l ogi ca l f or ce of t he evi den ce , not th e n u m b e r o f l i n k s , th a t s u p p o rtst h e f a c tfin d e r’sv e rd i c t. Evans , 202 S. W . 3d a t162, 166. C . Legal l y S uff i ci entEvi dence A ppl yi n g t he Mc Q ua rtersfa c to rsto th e p re s e n t c a s e , th e re c o rd d e m o n s tra te sth a t M c C l e n n yw a sp re s e n t w h e n th e d e p u ti e ss e a rc h e d S w i n k ’s t r u c k , t h a ta m a r iju a n a ro a c h a n d t h e b la c kw a lle tc o n t a in in g d r u g sw e r e v is ib le by g l anc i ng i n t he pas se nge rsi de oft he t r uck , t hatM cCl enn y w asr i di ng i n t he passengersi d e o ft he t r uck i n cl ose pr oxi m i t y t o t he dr ugs f oun d st uf f ed bet w ee n t he pas se nge rsea tand back r es tcush i ons , t hatSw i nk and M cCl enn y had sm oke d “dope ” abo utan hourbe f or e t hei rar r es t , t hatD epu t i esKi ef eran d W i l l i a m so n o b se rve d M c C l e n n ym a k i n g furti v e m o v e m e n ts i n the passengerseat w her e t he dr ugsw er e f ound, an d t hat M cCl enn y i ndi ca t ed a c ons ci ous nes s of21

gui l tw hen he t ol d S w i nk t hat he had hi dden hi s dr ugs i n S w i nk’ s carand had h o p e d th e yw o u l d n o t b e fo u n d . S e eMc Q ua rters , 58 S . W . 3d a t259. V i e w i n g th e e v i d e n c e i n th e l i g h t m o s t fa v o ra b l e to th e j u ry ’sv e rd i c t, w e hol d t hata r ati on al tr i eroff ac tco ul d ha ve f ound bey ond ar ea so nab l e d oubt th a t M c C l e n n yw a sg u i l tyo f p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o n tro l l e d s u b s ta n c e . S ee Tex. H e a l th & S a fe tyC o d e A n n . § 4 8 1 .0 0 2 (3 8 ); Ja ckson , 443 U. S. a t326, 99 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl

ayton , 235 S . W . 3d at778 . A cc ordi ngl y, w e h ol d t hatt he evi den cei s l ega l l y s uf f i ci entt o s upportM cCl enn y’ s con vi ct i on. D . Fact ual l y S uff i ci entEvi dence H avi ng f ound t he evi den cel ega l l y su f f i ci ent , w e n ow ad dr es s w het hert he e v i d e n c e isf a c tu a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt M c C l e n n y ’sc o n v i c ti o n . T h e re c o rd dem onst r at es t hat S w i nk ow ned t he t r uck w her e t he dr ugs w er e f oun d and t hat M cCl enn y di d notha ve any dr ugs on hi s per so n. H ow eve r , t he dep ut i esf ound t he con t ai ner s ofdr ugson t he pas se nge rs i de oft he veh i cl e, w her e M cCl enn y w as si tt i ng a n d w her e t he depu t i es had seen hi m m aki ng f urt i ve m ovem ent s. S w i nk t est i f i ed t hatt he dr ugs f oun ds i n t he passenge r s i d e o fhi s t r uck bel onge d t o M cCl enn y. O n app ea l , M cCl enn y att ac ks Sw i nk’ s cr edi bi l i t y as a w i t ness, ar gui ng t h a th e w a su n d e rt h e in f lu e n c e o fd r u g sw h e n h e w a sa r r e s t e d a n d t h a th e d id not t el l a n y o ne t hathe and M cC l enny h ad used dr ugs t he m or ni ng t hatt hey22

w er e a r r es t ed unt i l t he dayofM cCl enn y’ s t r i al . Butt he j ury i s t he so l e t r i erof f ac tan d j udgeoft he cr edi bi l i t y oft he w i t nes se s, an d w e m us tg i ve due def er enc e t o t he j ury’ s det er m i na t i ons oft he w ei ghtan d c r edi bi l i t y oft he e v i d e n c e . See Johns on , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 9 ; Ca in , 958 S. W . 2d a t407. M c C l e n n yalso arg u e s th a t f a c tu a l l yi n su ffic ie n t ev i d e n c e ex i sts to su pporthi s con vi ct i on beca us e Sw i nk t es t i f i ed t hathe had j us tpur cha se d dr ugs f r om M cCl enn y f or$ 20 or$ 30 butt he dep ut i esf ound onl y s i xt y- ni ne ce nt s on M cCl enn y. ButSw i nk’ s t es t i m ony of f er ed a p l aus i bl e e xpl ana t i on f ort hi s: he t est i f i ed t hathe and M cC l enny h ad been pl ayi n g sl otm achi nes att he gam e r oom be f or e t heyw er e a r r es t ed. W e havet hor oughl y r evi ew ed t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , an d w e f i nd no obj ec t i ve bas i s f orhol di ng t hatt he j ury’ s ver di ctw ascl ea r l y w r on g or m ani f es t l y un j us tort hati ti s co ntr ad i ct ed by t he gr ea tw ei ghtan d p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e . See L anc on , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; W atson , 204 S. W . 3d at414– 15, 417. Rat her , t he evi den cepr es ent ed att r i alw ass uf f i ci ent t o suppo rtt he j ur y’ s ver di ct , and no co nt r ary evi dence exi st s t hatw oul d r ender th e e v i d e n c e fa c tu a l l yi n s u fficie n t u n d e r th e a p p l i c a b l e s ta n d a rd o f re v i e w . S ee Lancon , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; Watso n , 204 S. W . 3d a t414– 15, 417. A c c o rd i n g l y , h a v in g h e l d th a t th e e v i d e n c e i sfa c tu a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt M c C l e n n y ’s co n v i c ti o n , w e o v e rr u l e h i s s e v e n th p o i n t.23 V II . C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o f M c C l e n n y ’sp o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

SU E W A LKER J UST I CE PA N EL: D A U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER and W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r8, 2009