In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00185-CR

NEDA KINDSVATER SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24855

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Neda Kindsvater Smith appeals the trial court’s revocation of her community supervision 

and sentence of twenty-four months’ confinement in state jail for the underlying offense of 

burglary of a building. On appeal, Smith argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish 

either that she smuggled a controlled substance into the Lamar County Jail or that the substance 

was olanzapine. The record shows otherwise. Finding the record sufficient on both points, we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

The decision to revoke community supervision rests within the discretion of the trial 

court. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 

318, 320 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). In a revocation hearing, the trial court is the 

sole trier of the facts and determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to their

testimony. T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d at 321. A trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision 

is examined in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order. Id.

To revoke community supervision, the State must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence every element of at least one ground for revocation. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 

art. 42.12, § 11 (West Supp. 2013); T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d at 320. Here, if the greater weight of 

credible evidence created a reasonable belief that Smith violated a condition of her community 

supervision, abuse of discretion is not shown. T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d at 321 (citing Martin v. State, 

623 S.W.2d 391, 393 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981)). 

The first condition of Smith’s community supervision required that she not violate any 

Texas laws. The Texas Penal Code states, “A person commits an offense if the person takes a 
3

controlled substance or dangerous drug on property owned, used, or controlled by a correctional 

facility.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.11(b) (West 2011). The State’s motion to revoke Smith’s 

community supervision alleged that, on May 7, 2013, Smith intentionally or knowingly brought 

olanzapine, a dangerous drug, into the Lamar County Jail.1

 Smith argues that, because there was 

no scientific testing of the contents of the pills and because the pills themselves were not 

introduced as evidence, there was no evidence (1) that the substance she was carrying was 

olanzapine, a controlled substance, or, consequently, (2) that she brought a controlled substance 

into the jail.

2

 

The trial court ordered Smith confined in the Lamar County Jail for sixty days as a 

condition of her community supervision. Smith was to begin her confinement by reporting to the 

jail on May 6, 2013. According to Lamar County jailers Maggie Valentino and Beverly Sulzar, 

Lamar County Jail policy requires a “pat down” of new inmates during the intake process, but 

only permits a body cavity search when specifically requested by a police officer. Upon Smith’s 

arrival at the jail on May 6, she was patted down, provided with an orange uniform, and assigned 

to a cell block with six or seven other inmates. 

Inmate Ashely Law testified that Smith arrived at their shared cell at 4:00 a.m. on May 7, 

2013. Law testified that she believed Smith to be under the influence of some substance because 

Smith attempted to crawl inside of a trash can. Between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m., Law witnessed 

 1

To rebut the possibility of an affirmative defense, the State further alleged that the drug was not brought into the jail 

warehouse, to a pharmacy, or to a physician. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.11(e) (West 2011). 

2

Although Smith’s brief purports to assert three separate points of error as to why the evidence is insufficient, we 

find that the sole issue raised by Smith’s brief is whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s order of 

revocation. 
4

Smith retrieving something from inside of her while sitting on the toilet. Law testified that 

Smith had her hands around her vagina and that there was blood in the toilet when she got up. 

Law observed a pill on the ground, and the jailers were notified of the presence of a possible 

controlled substance. 

Valentino arrived in the cell and noticed a white substance around Smith’s mouth. 

Valentino approached Smith, squeezed Smith’s mouth, and instructed her to spit out the contents. 

Smith swallowed, prompting Valentino to search her. In Smith’s closed fist, Valentino found a 

plastic sandwich bag that appeared to be covered with blood and that was full of pills in a variety 

of colors. After locating another small yellow pill in Smith’s pocket, Valentino turned the search 

of Smith’s person over to Sulzar while Valentino searched Smith’s cell. 

Sulzar testified that Smith was very unsteady on her feet. Fearing that she would fall, 

Sulzar instructed Smith to sit down. Smith complied, and Sulzar resumed the search of Smith’s 

person. Sulzar found more pills inside of Smith’s shoes. According to Sulzar, Smith claimed 

she found the pills behind the toilet in the bathroom. Valentino located additional pills under 

Smith’s sleeping mat. Valentino testified, “I asked [Smith] where she got the pills . . . [and 

Smith] said she got [them] from her vagina.” Both Valentino and Sulzar testified that Smith 

appeared intoxicated and disoriented. While the search uncovered additional pills throughout the 

cell, no pills were located on any of Smith’s cellmates.3

 

 3

At trial, Smith suggested that the pills found on her person could have been obtained from other inmates. Trial 

testimony established that inmates who receive medication are instructed to swallow that medication immediately in 

the presence of jail personnel. However, there was also testimony that some inmates only pretend to do so and 

instead hoard their medication for use in bartering with other inmates. Valentino testified to finding two or three 

pills as a result of inmate hoarding during her tenure, but she denied ever locating a large stash of pills as a result of 

the practice. Since Smith had been in her cell less than three hours at the time the pills at issue in this case were 
5

Valentino testified that she gave the pills that were collected during the search to a male 

jailer who did not testify at trial. The State offered neither the pills nor the plastic bag recovered 

during the search as evidence at trial out of fear that they contained biohazardous material. 

Instead, the State introduced a photograph depicting pills and a bloody plastic bag; Valentino 

testified that this photograph (State’s Exhibit 1) fairly and accurately depicted the items that she 

found on Smith. 

Sam Wicks, a licensed pharmacist for thirty-seven years, testified without objection4 that 

the pink pills in the photograph marked as State’s Exhibit 1 had an identifying mark of “APO” 

on one side and “OLA 20” on the other.5

 Wicks testified that the pills in the photograph 

containing these marking were olanzapine, a prescription medication most commonly used to 

treat patients with bipolar disorder.6 

Smith had only been in jail for a few hours before she was found intoxicated and carrying 

a large amount of pills. Jailers testified that they were not allowed to conduct body cavity 

searches of new inmates unless instructed by a police officer. Law testified that she witnessed 

 discovered, the conclusion that Smith had not obtained the pills from a source inside the jail was certainly 

reasonable.

4

During Wicks’ testimony, Smith only objected that the photograph had not been properly authenticated despite 

Valentino’s testimony and as to relevance. 

5

The photograph depicted both the front and the back of the pink pills. The other pills could not be identified by 

their markings. 

6

In Curtis v. State, 548 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a 

narcotics officer could not confirm or deny whether a white or brown powdery substance was heroin based solely on 

his observation of that substance. Citing Curtis, Smith argues that Wicks’ testimony constituted insufficient 

evidence that the pills were olanzapine. As the Court of Criminal Appeals noted in Curtis, unlike heroin, which has 

no identifying mark differentiating it from other non-controlled, white or brown, powdery substances, olanzapine 

has identifying markers. See id. (recognizing that unique characteristics of green, leafy marihuana plants enables 

expert to differentiate marihuana from other green, leafy plants by sight alone).
6

Smith retrieving something from inside of her vagina. Shortly thereafter, Law saw a pill on the 

ground, jailers were notified, and a bloody bag containing a large amount of pills was located on 

Smith’s person. A witness verified that a photograph of the pills, State’s Exhibit 1, accurately 

depicted the pills found on Smith. Wicks testified he examined State’s Exhibt 1 and could 

identify that some of the pills in the photograph were olanzapine, a controlled substance. Based 

on this evidence, the trial court found that Smith violated the terms and conditions of her 

community supervision by concealing a controlled substance in her body cavity and then 

smuggling it into the Lamar County Jail. 

After reviewing the evidence presented at the revocation hearing in a light most favorable 

to the revocation order, we find that the trial court was within its discretion to conclude that the 

State met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Smith committed an 

offense by bringing a controlled substance into the jail. 

We overrule Smith’s sole point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: February 21, 2014

Date Decided: April 8, 2014

Do Not Publish