### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 91 -C R

______________________________ MI L TON L EE PATTERSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 336th J udicial District Court

Fa nnin County , Texas Trial Court No. 22219

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice MoseleyKimb al l states Thompson was a war e of the char g es pendingag ainst her. Thompson 1 contra dicted the claims, denying knowledg e of a ny pending char g es or of

having made a

ny promises to Kimball, even though he was aware "that she was stopped in a ca r, and he r husband or

boy friend had we nt to jail for drug s." H e admits that he did not have much time to deter mine if Kimball was 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON A jury found Milton L ee Patter son g uilty of deliver ing bet wee n four to 200 g rams of
m et h am p h etamine a

nd, as a r esult, he re ceive d an enha nced life sentenc e due to two pr evious convictions. Patterson appe als the trial cour t's judg ment on the g rounds that hea rsay objections wer e
err oneously

overr uled and that the e vidence ag ainst him was leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient. I. F actual and Proc edural History Controlled drug buy s often fa il to go as p l an n ed, par ticularly when it is nece ssary

for the police to oper ate throug h inhere ntly unreliable confide ntial inf ormants. Wit h that fac t a s a pre mise, it is no surprise that g aps in the evidence at trial resulted whe n Fa nnin County

police off

icer s used drug -addic ted Ruth Ann Kim ball to orche strate a purcha se of methamphetamine throug h Patterson. Obviously , her c redibility was que stioned by

Patterson. Kimball w as dating J ames Thornton, repor ted to be one of the most notori o u s n ar co tics traff icker s in Fannin County . Both Kimball and Thor nton were appre hended by the police a fter a tr a ff ic sto p r e su lte d in

dr ug -r e la te d c ha

rg e s b e ingbr ou g ht a g a ins t the m. A c c or din g to K imb a ll, Offic er " David Thompson wanted another conviction." On seve ral oc casions, " [he] promised [her] that [sh e ] wo uld

ne ve r g o to c ourt ," " [t]hat th a t c ha rg e wo uld be dr op pe d, " and that Th or nto n " wo uld
on ly g e t l i k e t w o y e ar s , " i f s h e a g r e e d t o s e r v e a s a c o n f

i d e n t i a l i n f

o r m an t
. R e s p o n d i n g to 1cre dibl e. Of fice r Ter ry Be e, who wa s working with Thompson, testified that he was a war e that Kimball was on community supervision and wa s participatingin the drug court prog ram. Kimball de nied g oing to the sheriff ' s office or beingsear ched. T his fact wa s contested by 2 Thompson and Off

icer Way ne Walker, w ho repor

ted that they

sear ched K imball and her vehicle for c on tr a ba nd a nd mon e y . T he of

fi c e rs a dmi t th e y

we re un a ble to do a fu ll p a t- do wn

se arc h b e c a

us e a fe male off

icer was not pre sent. Th ompson testified that he re cog nized Patterson's voic e duringthis ini tial conver sation. 3 Although a

price and mee ting plac e we re a rra ng ed, no m en t i o n o f d rugs was ma de on this tape rec ording
. 3 Thompson's ur g ing, K imball ag ree d to participate . She rec eived a tip from a friend who had pr e vio us ly

a c qu ir e d me tha

mph e tamin e fr om P a tte rs on . A lth ou g h sh e ha d n o d e a lin g s w ithhim befor e, Patterson be came her ta rg et. Kimball indicated that she was "hig h all the time" on a combination of methamphe tamine,
a lc oh ol, Xa

na x, and po ssi bly Hydr oc od on e , and that sh e did no t r e c a ll m any e ve nts c le arl y . Wh ile the da y of Pa tte rs on ' s ta

ke do wn se e me d " lik e a

dr e a m" or

a " ha ze, " th e fol lowin g e ve nts re ma in
un c on te ste d: Kimball met with Thompson prior to the pr oposed drugbuy
. She called Patter son using he r 2 cell phone a

nd arr ang ed for

him to purchase a

quarte r ounce of m et h am p h et ami ne for her. In a
rec orded c onversation, Patterson quoted Kimball a price of $325 for the drug s and re quested that Ki mba ll m e e t hi m a t th e B on ham Wa l- Ma rt pa rk inglot
. Th omp so n g a ve Ki mb all mar ked bil ls 3 totaling $325. Accompanie d by sever al surveillanc e off icer s, Kimball drove to Wal-Mart, pa rked her c ar, a nd waited f

or Pat t er s o n . A 1 9 9 9 purple Dodg e truc k, known to be one of ten driven byWal ke r e ve n a dmi ts h e " los t he r b e c a us e of wh e re Iwas settingup a t . . . [f or ] [a]bo ut a 4 mi nu te- and -a-h alf

." 4 Patterson, enter ed the Wal-Mar t parking lot a

nd stopped beside Kimball's car . Kimball exi ted her
ve hic le , g a ve Pa tte rs on

the mon e y , a

nd g ot ba c k in sid e he r c ar, e xch ang ingno c on ve rs a tio n w ith Patterson. Surveillance office r B ee positively identified Patterson while Thompson photog raphe d the vehicle s. Neither of

fice r actually saw Kimball pay over the money to Patterson. Thompson and Be e then f

ollowed Patterson as he left the pa rking lot. Kimball, who was inst ructe d to g o to a safe place where she commonly went, drove to the Americ an L eg ion hall, which maintained a bar. She informed the office rs that Patterson would mee t her a round seve n o' clock. Although Walker was supposed to keep he r under constant surve illance, he remai n e d

p ar k e d o u ts id e th e A me r ic anL e g io nh a ll an d c o u ld n o t o b s e r

v e K im b a ll a s s he proce eded to play

pool and drink bee r inside. 4 Meanw hile, the offic ers f ollowing Patter son identified him as he made a q u ick stop at the Lucky Food Ma rt. He the n m ad e another brief stop at an apa

rtment, trave led to a suspec ted drug ho us e , a nd we nt b a c k to the ap art ment , w he re he re ma ine d f or a pp ro xima te ly

fo rt y -f ive min ute s. Patterson then we nt to an abandone d g as station and drove past it sever al t imes. Thompson testified that this tactic, which he called a "he at run," is commonly employ ed by drug traff icker s to determine whether they are being followed. Eventually , Thompson obse rved Patterson' s purple truck e nter the Americ an L eg ion hall parking lot. Kimball's vehic le fe ll in li ne behind Patter son, and Thompson trailed be hind Kimball.5

When the vehicles w ere half a mile w est of the Bonha

m c ity limit s, Kimball pulled ove r on the hig hway

behind Patterson. Thompson drove pa st the vehicles, a nd circ led bac k around w ithout headlig hts in order to better observe the vehicles. The dark, r ainy night obstruc ted his vision and he
was una ble to see w hat happe ned inside Kimball' s vehicle. Thompso n testified that he obse rved Pa tte rs on e xit hi s tr

uc k a nd e nte r Ki mba ll' s c ar. Ki mba ll ind ic a te d that sh e re me mbe re d ve ry lit tle of this meeting , rec alling only that she had asked P atterson how he was doing and then watched a s Patterson re turned to his truck. H e r p o o r r e c o ll e c ti o nr e s u lt e d

in tw o v e r s io n s o f

th e f o ll o w in g e v e n ts
. K im

b a ll n e xt
reme mbers beingwith Thompson at the Ector convenie nce store in his truck. She say s there w ere dr ug s in Th omp so n' s ve hic le , bu t wa s no t sure wh e re the y c a me fr om. Ki mba ll t e sti fi e d, " Ig ue ss, Ig ave the m to him. . . . . I must have, y ou know, I can' t be sure. I wa s h i gh m y s el f," on methamphetamine, X anax, and alcohol. Th omp so n te sti fi e d h e or de re d off ice rs in B on ham to sto p Patte rs on on his wa y ba c k in to tow n a nd ins tr uc te d K imb a ll t o me e t hi m a t th e Ec tor c on ve nie nc e sto re . Tho mps on sa id K imb a ll had a c le ar b a g c o n ta in in g a w h it e c r y s ta l s u b s ta n c e th a t a p p e ar e d to b e me th a mp h e ta mine. He
re tr ie ve d h e r r e c or din g de vic e and ma ile d th e su

bs tanc e to t

he Te xas D e pa

rtme nt o f P ub lic Sa fe ty (DPS) laboratory for testing. Be cause the rec ording device can only rec ord a desig nated number of hours, its capa city

was e x cee ded before Kimball's mee ting with Patterson at the Americ an L eg ion6

hall, as we ll as the critica l subsequent eve nts following that mee ting a nd there was no re cordingof their conve rsations ava ilable. Pa tte rs on wa s de ta ine d and arr e ste d in B on ham. A se arc h of his c ar pr od uc e d only a ce ll phone (w hich i n d i ca ted that it had bee n used to corr espond that day with Kimball). The off

icer s
never lo c a te d th e ma

r k e d mo n e y , w h ic h h a d b e e n g iv e n p r e v io u s ly to K im b a ll ; n o sear ch wa s
c on du c te d o f t

he purp or te d d ru g ho us e wh e re Patte rs on ha d s top pe d earli e r i n th e da y . T he DPS
c ri me la bo ra tor y in G arl and

c on du c te d te sts on

the pa c ka g e wh ic h T ho mps on ma ile d to it; the te sts
reve aled that i t co n t ai n ed 6.76 g rams of me thamphetamine. The jury found Patterson guilty

of deliveringthis methamphetamine. II. Thompson's T estim ony Was Not Hearsay We reviewruling s admitting stat em en ts alleg ed to be he arsa y for a n abuse of

discretion. Zul ian i v . S

tat e , 97 S.W .3d 5 8 9 , 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). A trial cour t abuses its discretion when it ac ts arbitrar ily , u n re as o n ably , or without ref ere nce to guiding r

ules or princ iples . H

owe ll

v . S tat e , 1 75 S.W. 3d

78 6, 79 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); Re y no lds v . S

tat e , 2 7 7 S. W. 3 d 3 5 5 , 3 7 1 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2007, no pet.). Patt e r s o n f

ir s t c o mp la in s o f a ll e g e d h e ar s ay s tate me n ts ma d e b y T h o mp s o n a f te r he wa s
rec alled by

the State. The f

ollowing e x chang e occ urre d afte r t h e evide nce r ecited a bove wa s de ve lop e d: Q. When y ou g ot to Ector and y ' all both g ot to a convenie nce store there , wher e wa s the methamphetamine?7 A. We pulled up next to eac h other at the g as pumps. And she jumped in out of her c ar into my

underc over ve hicle. And she had it in her ha nd. Q. Okay . So she g ave it to y ou? A. Yea

h. She laid it on the console. Q. Did she identify

any body who had be en in her

car during that stop? A. Yes, she sa id Milt on. [C ounsel for Patter son]: I ' ll object to hear say . [C ounsel for State]: Your Honor , it's a statement for identification, not hear say . THE COURT: Over ruled. A. She advised Milton Patterson. Q. (B y

Mr. Setterbe rg ) At that time in Ector? A. I n Ector ha d delivere d that. Had not -- [C ounsel for Patterson]: I ' m g oing to obje ct to hear say , offe red for the tr uth of the matter a sserted. THE COURT: Over ruled. A. No t on ly

did sh e me nti on

that, s he a lso a dv ise d th a t he st ate d it weig hed rig ht. [C ounsel for State]: Pass the witness, Your Honor
. Hea rsay "is a statement, other than one made by the dec lara

nt while testify ing at the trial or hear in g, off

eredin evi den ce t o p rov e th e tr ut h of th e mat ter ass ert ed. " T EX . R. E V ID . 80 1( d) . I t is8

inadmissible ex cept a s provided by statute. T EX . R. E V ID . 802. A statement is not hear say if the decla rant testifies at tr ial, is subject to cross-e x amination, and the state ment is "one of identification of a p ers on mad e a f

t e r perc eiv in g the p ers on ." T EX . R. E V ID . 801(e) (1)( C). Her e, Kimball was pr e se nt at tr ia l, w a s a c tua lly re c a lle d a ft e r T ho mps on wa s r e c a lle d ( a

nd wa s thus su

bje c t to c ro ssexamination), the statement involved an identification of Patter son, and Kimball' s testimony shows she had a mple opportunity

to perc eive Patter son. Thus, this statement was one of identification and was not hea

rsay . Cha ne

yv . S tat e , N o . 0 1

- 0 8

- 0 0 2 0 4

- CR , 2 0 0 9 WL 1 0 8 6 9 5 2 , a t * 1 0 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 23, 2009, no pe t.) (me m . o p ., not desig nated f or publication); Ro dr igu e z v . S tat e , 974 S.W .2d 364, 371 (Tex. App.—Am arillo 1998, pet. re f' d) (testimony by office r that victim ha d identified appe llant as assailant not hea rsay per Rule 801( e)( 1)(C) of Texas Rul e s o f E vid e nc e ); Mi lle r v . S tat e , 843 S.W .2d 265, 267 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1992, no pet.). M o r e o v e r , T h o mp s o nm e r e l y r e i t e r a t e d K i mb a l l ' s i d e n t i f

i c a t i o nr e c i t e d

i nh e r p r e v i o u s t e s t i m o n y. See R odriguez , 974 S.W .2d at 371. Patterson also ar g ues that while the State' s question, "A t that time in Ector? " did not ca ll for h e ar s ay i t s e l f , t h e r e s p o n s e , " InE c t o r

h a d d e l i v e r e d t h a t
. H a d

n o t- - " w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e h e ar s a y . It is n ot c le ar t

hat T ho mps on wa s te sti fy ing a bo ut an ou t- of

-c ourt state me nt ma de by Ki mba ll at th is point. Consequently , we cannot find the trial court abused its discr etion in overrulingthe objection. L a st, Pa tte rs on

re fe rs to Th omp so n' s " un so lic ite d and e nti re ly g ratui tou s st a te me nt, " " [n]ot on ly did [Kim ba ll] me nti on

that, s he a lso adv is ed th a t he state d it we ig he d r ig ht. " We a g re e that th is9

state me nt w a s h e ars ay . H ow e ve r, Pa tte rs on fa ile d to ob

je c t to thi s p art

of the te sti mony ; f

a ili ngto object, he failed to pre serve the issue for r eview. T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3. 1; Ma rti ne z v . S tat e , 91 S.W .3d 331, 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We overrule this point of er ror. III. Legally and F actually Su ff icient Evidence Sup ported the Ve rdict Pa t t e r s o n n e xt c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s b o t h l e g a l l y an d f a c tu a l l y i n s u f

f i c i e nt t o
su pp or t hi s c on vic tio n. L e g a l and fa c tua l suf fi c ie nc y qu e sti on s invo lve dis tin c tly se pa ra te ana ly se s. The re quirement of le g al suffic iency serve s as a tool to deter

mine whether

submissi on of an issue is require d. Cle wis v . S

tat e , 922 S.W .2d 126, 133 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1996). I n other wor ds, if the evidenc e in this case was insufficient to raise a n issue of Patterson' s g uilt, it should not have bee n submitt ed for

the jury ' s decision, and we must render a judg ment of ac quittal. Id. When conducting this analy sis, we re view all of the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t and deter mine wh e the r a ny ratio na l jur

y c ou ld fi nd the e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t. Lac ou r v . S

tat e , 8 S.W
. 3 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 30 7, 31 9 ( 19 79 )) ; Cle wis , 922 S.W .2d at 132–33. We also measur e the e v i d en ce "a g ainst the
e le me nts of

the of fe ns e wi th t

he same kin d of an a ly sis a s tha t app lie d in the te st fo r a hy po the tic a lly
corr ectju ry

char ge for t he cas e." Fe rra le z v . S tat e , No. 06-08-00064- CR, 2009 W L454335, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarka n a Fe b. 25, 2009, no pet.) (me m. op., not designated for publication) (citing Ma lik v . S tat e , 953 S.W. 2d 23 4, 24 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 )) ; se e als o G ro ttiv . S tat e , 273 S.W .3d10

27 3, 28 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ). Th e hy po the tic a lly

c or re c t jury c ha rg e " se ts o ut t

he law, is authorized by

t h e i n d ictment, does not unnec essar ily incre ase the State' s burden of proof or
un ne c e ssa

ri ly re str ic t th e State ' s the or ie s of lia bil ity , and a de qu a te ly de sc ri be s the pa rt ic ula r o ff e ns e for whi ch t he d efen dan t w as t ri ed. " Ma lik, 953 S.W .2d at 240. Once this threshold Jack

son standard is me t, however , we will not sit as the thirteenth juror
re- evaluating the w eig ht and cr edibility of the e vidence
. W

ill iam s v. Sta te , 235 S.W .3d 742, 750 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07); De wbe rry v . S tat e , 4 S.W .3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). I nstead,
w e g i v e f u l l p l ay t o t h e j u r

y' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e , r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t s i nt h e t e s t i m o n y, and dra w re asonable infere nces f

rom basic f

acts. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 00 ); Cle wis , 9 22 S.W. 2d a t 13 3; Bo tte nfi e ld v . S

tat e , 77 S.W.3 d 349 , 354 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2 0 0 2 , p et
. re f'd ) ( ci t i n g Jack son , 443 U.S. at 319). On t h e o t h er h an d , b ec au s e f ac tu al s u ff

i ci en cy i s an i s s u e o f f

ac t , we ar e n o tfr ee t o re -w ei gh the evidenc e and se t aside the jury verdic t merely

beca use we fee l a diffe rent re sult is m ore
rea sonable. Cle wis , 922 S.W .2d at 135. I nstead, we g ive due de fer ence to its determinations and will find the evidenc e to be fac tually insufficient only when nece ssary to preve nt manifest injustice. Johnson , 2 3 S. W.3 d at 8– 9, 12 ; Cle wis , 922 S.W .2d at 133, 135. Thus, unlike our leg al suffic iency revie w, we examine the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht when asse ssing f actua l sufficienc y

and dete rmine whether the proof of g uilt is so obviously weak as to undermine c onfidenc e in the ver dict, or, if take n alone, is g reatly

outweig hed by co n t ra ry p ro o f so as to be clear ly wrongand unjust. Johnson , 2311

S.W. 3d a t 11 ; Cai n v . S

tat e , 9 58 S.W .2 d 40 4, 40 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); Ha rri s v . S tat e , 133 S.W .3d 760, 764 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, pet. re f' d). We also use the hy pothetically

corr ect jury char g e to eva luate fa ctual suff iciency
. Gr ott i , 273 S.W .3d at 281. De liv e ry of a c on tr oll e d su

bs tanc e is an of

fe ns e un de r the Te xas Con tr oll e d Su bs tanc e s A c t. T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE A NN . § 481.112(a) (Ve rnon 2003). De liver " means to transf er,
a c tua lly or c on str uc tiv e ly , to ano the r a

c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e . . . . Th e te rm inc lud e s of fe ri ngto s e ll
a con tr ol led su bs tan ce." T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.002(8) ( Ve rn o n 2 0 03). The applicable hy

pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e would, therefor e, require the State to bring forth proof of the followingelements: that (1) Patterson, (2) had di rec t or i ndirec t control of, ( 3) a c ontrolled substance, (4) which he knowing ly or intentionally , (5) de livered. See Ha y es v . S tat e , 265 S.W .3d 673, 680 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2008, pet. ref' d). Actual delivery consists of transfe rring
or surre ndering"the rea l possession and control of a controlled substance from one person to anothe r pers on ." He be rli ng

v . S tat e , 8 34 S.W. 2d 35 0, 35 4 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); Ex parte Pe rales , 215 S.W .3d 418, 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A construc tive transfe r can occur by placingthe contra

band " in a par

ticular location and then advis[ing] the rec ipient of this location so that the rec ipient c an retrie ve" it. Si ms v . S tat e , 117 S.W .3d 267, 268–69 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Deliver by offe r to sell "is complete, w hen, by words
o r d e e d , a p e r s o nkn o w i n g l y off

e rs to sel l w hat he s tat es i s a co nt rol led su bs tan ce." Ste war t v . S tat e , 718 S.W .2d 286, 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).12

" [P]ro of of an o ff e r t o s e ll mus t be c or

ro bo rate d b y : ( 1) a

pe rs on oth e r t ha n th e pe rs on

to wh om t he of fe r is mad e ; or (2 ) ev ide nc e oth e r tha n a sta te me nt of the pe rs on to w ho m th e of

fe r i s mad e." T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.182 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Corroboration can include an e lectronic rec ording of the tra nsaction, testimony

of witnesses other

than Kimball, and evidenc e that Patterson had possession of or ac cess to the c ontrolled substance offe red. See Knight

v . S tat e , 9 1 S. W.3 d 4 18 , 4 22 (T e x. Ap p. —Wa c o 2 00 2, no pe t.) . Si nc e the jur y mus t " a lmo st a lw a y s" infer the ment al cu l pability of the de fenda

nt from their a cts, conduc t, and words, e vidence which
corr oborate s Patterson' s testimony will be probative of

his intent or knowledg e. Id. at 423. I n r e vie wi ngthe e vid e nc e a bo ve , we c on c lud e , no t on ly that the e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt t o
ra i s e an i s s ue about Patter son' s g uilt, but also t hat a r ational jury could find deliver

y bey ond a
rea sonable doubt base d on the hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e. Lacour , 8 S.W. 3d a t 67 1. Whil e Ki mba ll' s me mor

y of the e ve nt i s f

a de d, c lou dy , and sk e tc hy , the jur y c ou ld h a ve e a sil y

c ho se n to believe T hompson's ve rsion of the e vents—that the sea rch of Kim b al l b efore the ope ration
commence d showed that she ha d no contra band, but she produc ed methamphe tamine to Thompson afte r mee ting with Patterson on the side of the h i gh wa y
— sug g esting an ac tual or construc tive transfe r fr om Patterson to her. Kimball' s testimony that Patterson offe red to sell a quarte r ounce of methamphetamine to he r is c orrobor ated by Thompson's testimony , tape rec ording Ex hibit 1 ( where Patterson is hear d quoting a price of $325 and reque sting Kimball meet him at the Wal-Mart pa rking lot), and tape rec ording Ex hibit 8 (which containe d the following excerpts):T h e r e c o r d d e mo n s tr a te s th a t t

h e A me r ic anL e g io nw a s r e f e r r e d to a s th e V
. F
. W. 5 13 [Thomps on:] Okay . Today ' s day is Ma rch 13, 2007. I t's approximately 5:30 p. m. We' ve c a lle d- -w hat' s Mi lto n' s p ho ne numbe r? He ' s g oin g to m e e t us a t Wa lMart . . . That's Milton Patterson. He dr ives what? Purple Dodg e Truc k? [Kim ball:] Purple truck. [Thomps on:] Purple truck. Oka y . He' s g oing to mee t us at Wal-Mart, y ou' re g oing to g ive hi m the $325, he' s g oing to g o g et a quarter ounc e of me th, he' s g oing to d e li v e r it b a c k to u s a t t h e V F W. 5

. . . . [ Ki mb al l o nt el ep h o n e t o P at t er s o n : ] "H ey , I wa s j u s tca l l i n g t o s ee wh at 's up. I s ever

y thing oka y ?
. . . . Um, any

way I ' m goingto be in my

car sitti ng out front of the Ame rica

n L eg ion. So let me know something a lrig ht. I f y ou can' t just bring me my money ." Certainly , this evidence was leg ally sufficie nt to submit the issue of Patterson' s g uilt to t he jury under a ll three de finitions of delivery
. Fur ther, we gi v e d u e defe renc e to the jury ' s determination base d on rea sonable infe renc es fr o m t h i s ev i d en ce t h at P at t er s o nkn o wi n gl y o ff er edt o s el l m et h am p h et am i n e t o Ki mb al l t h ro u gh his words, and by

his deeds in taking Kimball's mone y , trave ling to a known dr ug house, re turning to the Americ an L eg ion hall, and mee ting with Kimball on the side of the highw ay . Se e Ste war t , 718 S.W .2d at 288 (" [W ]hen delivery is by offe r t o sell no transfe r nee d take plac e. A de fenda nt need not e ven have any controlled substance." ). Be cause we cannot say that the ver dict is clear ly

wrong and unjust, or that proof of Patterson' s g uilt is obviously weak or i s g reatly outweig hed by

contra ry proof, we find the evide nce w as both leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt.14

IV. Conclusion We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: May 4, 2009 Date D ecide d: May 12, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh