COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00117-CR

CHRISTOPHER YARBOROUGH APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1313733D

----------

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that when viewing the 

evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution that the trial court could have 

found beyond a reasonable doubt that Yarborough knowingly possessed the 

methamphetamine found under a bed in a bedroom in an apartment where seven 

individuals were found at the time police conducted their search. Jackson v. 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 326, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2793 (1979); Dobbs v. State, 434 

S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The trial court determined that Yarborough’s presence at the apartment in 

which methamphetamine was found under a bed that evidence shows was a 

shared room between him and co-defendant Bass, coupled with the presence of 

legal documents with Yarborough’s name and signature on them, men’s clothing, 

a bag containing men’s personal hygiene items, and the fact that the 

methamphetamine along with drug paraphernalia were found in a safe containing 

a set of digital scales with the nicknames of both he and co-defendant Bass 

handwritten on them in pink marker, as well as $650 cash found on Yarborough’s 

person were sufficient “links” to find Yarborough guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt of possessing the methamphetamine found under the bed.

That a person can be convicted of possession of a controlled substance on 

such tenuous connections is disturbing, and our jurisprudence should not abide 

such a result, especially given that each of these facts establish that Bass, or any 

of the other six occupants of the house, could have possessed the 

methamphetamine. See Meyers v. State, 665 S.W.2d 590, 595 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref’d) (“Control of the apartment is not synonymous with 

control of the contraband when the appellant does not have sole access.”)

In fact, other links not discussed by the majority tend to connect Bass to 

the methamphetamine instead of Yarborough. Indeed, the officers’ search 

warrant was predicated on a controlled buy that Bass conducted with the 
3

confidential informant whereby Bass sold methamphetamine to the confidential 

informant. The logical inference from this purchase is that Bass, not Yarborough, 

possessed the methamphetamine. The nicknames found inscribed on the digital 

scales was done so using a hot pink marker. The logical inference from the 

writing and the color of the marker used to inscribe the digital scales is that the 

scales belonged to Bass, or at a minimum that the inscription was written by 

Bass. Furthermore, one of the other occupants of the apartment was found to 

have possessed 27.92 grams of methamphetamine in her purse. The logical 

inference from this is that both Bass and the other female individual were the 

ones possessing and selling methamphetamine. And $650 cash found on 

Yarborough is simply insufficient of itself to prove possession.

That Yarborough may have previously possessed methamphetamine and, 

possibly, was even previously dealing drugs, is not sufficient to find that he 

possessed the methamphetamine found under the bed. The evidence in the 

record linking Yarborough to the methamphetamine is simply not enough to 

establish possession. The State proved no more than a mere probability or 

strong suspicion, that Yarborough jointly possessed the methamphetamine. But 

“[p]roof amounting only to strong suspicion or mere probability will not suffice” to 

support a conviction for possession. See Roberson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 730, 742 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d). Possession means more than 

merely “being where the action is.” Meeks v. State, 692 S.W.2d 504, 511 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1985) (quoting Wilkes v. State, 572 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 
4

1978)). While recognizing that the State need only prove joint possession, here 

joint possession among seven people is a stretch. I would hold that the State 

failed to prove that Yarborough possessed the methamphetamine found under 

the bed and therefor I dissent.

/s/ Bill Meier

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 16, 2015