NO. 07-06 -009 9-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A OC TOBER9, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ CHARLES RAY GIBSON, JR., AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 12 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T ER RY COU NT Y; ST NO . 527 3; H ON ORABLE KELLY G. M OOR E, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION A p p e l l a n t , C h a r l e s R a y G i b s o n , J r . , a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n fo r p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance (c ocai ne) and sent ence of 99 yea rs incarcerati on in t he In sti tuti onal Di v is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. W e rev erse. Back g ro und On Octo ber 1, 2 004 at arou nd 1 1:1 5 p.m ., Rose W aitm an ca lle d the Brownf ield Pol ic e D epar

tment out of c oncer n that her daug hter

( C. W .) , w ho w as 15 y ears o ld at t he2

ti me, had not retur ned home from a hi g h s chool fo otbal l g ame. Off ic er C ar ri ll o w as dis patc hed t o the W ait man resi dence

. Ros e tol d C ar ri ll o tha t C .W . may be i n a b lue 1989 “Pont iac Oldsm obile (sic)” and she gav e him t he license plate n um ber of t he v ehicle. Rose re q uest ed th at C ar ri ll o find her daug hter

and br ing her

home. At a pprox imat ely

11:4 5 p.m., Car ri ll o spotted a v ehi cl e tha t matc hed t he des cr ipt ion of the v ehi cl e g iv en by W ait man. Carri llo coul d noti denti fy it s o cc upants or ev en how ma ny occup ant s w ere in the v ehicle. C a rr il lo p ulled b ehin d the v ehicle, activ ate d his em ergency lig hts, a nd followed the v ehicle to ef fectu ate the sto p. At no time a f ter Carrill o spot ted the vehicle did he obse rv e the driv er v iolate any traf f ic laws. Af

ter the v ehicle sto pped, Car ri ll o s poke w it h the dri v er , w ho he ide nti fied as appell ant, tol d him that he had been s topped “for

th e j u ven ile,” and ask ed appe ll ant t o ex itthe v ehi cl e. After appel lan t ex it ed th e v ehi cl e, C ar rill o a sk e d hi m for hi s d ri v er ’s l ic ense and proof of insu ra nce. Ano the r of

f icer, w ho was assisting Carrill o, rem oved C.W . f rom th e v ehicle. Appe llant to ld Carrill o tha t he did not ha v e a license or proof of insurance

. Carrill o ran a l icense inquiry throug h di spat ch and w as abl e to v er ify thatappel lan t did not hav e a v ali d dr iv er ’s l ic ense. As a result, Carrillo placed app ellantund er arrest. Follow ing app ellant ’s arrest, the v ehicle w as searched inc ide nt t o the ar re st. Coc ain e and marijua na w ere di sc ov ered i n or next t o the v ehi cl e. App ellantf iled a pre-trial Motion to Suppre ss the drugs cont end ing tha t the y w ere dis cov ered as a resul t of an il leg al search and seiz ure. A hear ing w as hel d on the mot ion w it h C ar ri ll o bei ng the only t e sti fyi ng w it ness . Car ri ll o tes ti fied th at he w as aw are tha t appel lan t di d nothav e a dri v er ’s lic ense base d on a pas t enc ounter w it h hi m, how ev er , he3

expressly

state d tha t he did not pu ll the v ehicl e o ve r fo r th is reason. Rather, Carrillo testif ied th at he stopp ed th e ve hicle be cause it match ed th e de scription giv en b y C.W .’s mother , w ho was concer ned abo ut he r daug hter ’s w elfare. The tr ial co urt den ied the Mo ti on to Suppress the ev ide nce. At t ri al, C .W . t est ified reg ardin g t h e e v ents of Oct ober 1, 2004. She tes ti fied th at she and app ell ant l eft the footbal l g ame before itended. Ap pel lan t s topped by a house for a br ief per iod w hil e C. W

. w ait ed in the car . Appel lan t t ook C. W . bac k t o the footbal l g ame, but t he g ame had ended a nd C .W . c oul d notfin d t h e p e rso n t h at was to g iv e her a r ide home. As a re sul t, appel lan t ag re ed to tak e C. W

. home. As appel lan t w as attempt ing to g iv e C .W . a ri de home, C ar ri ll o pul led appel lan t ov er . As Car ri ll o approache d the v ehi cl e, appel lan t pul led dr ug s out of his pock et, handed them to C.W ., and told her to “c hunk them out th e window .” H ow ev er , bec ause another off ic er approache d the pas seng er ’s si de w ind ow at the same time that Car ri ll o approac hed the dri v er ’s side, C .W . t est ified thatsh e lai d the dr ug s b esi de th e s eat. Al so, at tr ial , C .W .’ s mot her , R ose, tes ti fied th at s he c all ed th e pol ic e to loo k for her daug hter bec ause she w as “c oncer ned” w hen she did not come h ome w it h the peopl e tha t she w ent to the g ame w it h. Ros e had been infor med that C. W

. w as w it h appel lan t, but s he “didn’t want her in the car w ith him .” Car ri ll o tes ti fied th at he w ent a nd s poke w it h R ose and that s he w as v er y co ncer ned ab ou t he r

d au g ht er . H e te s ti fi ed t ha t R os e to l d hi m t ha t C .W

. ha d l eftt he foo tb al l g am e around 10:20 w it h appell ant. Car ri ll o spotted appell ant’ s v ehi cl e dri v ing in the di re cti on ofF urther re fe re nce to prov is ion s o f the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re w il l be 1 by referenc e to “a rt ic le __.” 4 C. W .’ s h ome at 11:48. After Car ri ll o s topped the v ehi cl e, he tes ti fied th at he approache d the d ri v er , id enti fied hi msel f, and adv is ed th e dr iv er thathe was bei ng st opped “ for th e juvenile.” At t h e s am e time , ano the r of f icer mad e con tact wi th C.W . on th e pa ssenger’s side of the vehicle. Carril lo asked app ellantto step out of the v ehicle a nd for his driv er’s li c e n s e a nd p roof

of insurance . W hen app ellantfailed to produ ce the se do cum ent s, Car ri ll o c all ed i n a d ri v er ’s l ic ense chec k t hat i ndi cat ed th at ap pel lan t’ s d ri v er ’s lic ense had ex pired i n 1993. As a re sul t, Car ri ll o ar re ste d appel lan t. After appel lan t was pla ced under arrest, his v ehicle w as search ed a nd co caine and marijua na were fo und on the f loorbo ard of the frontpas seng er ’s area. At the close of

ev iden ce, th e cou rt took up the issue of the jury charge. Th e cou rt’s propose d c harg e i ncl uded an i nst ru cti on th at an ac compl ic e w it ness ’s tes ti mony mustbe cor ro borated. The S tate obj ect ed to the inc lus ion of thi s i nst ru cti on on the b asi s t hat t he ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o es tabl is h tha t C .W . w as an acc ompli ce, but t he c our t ov er ru led th e o bj e c t i o n . A p p e l l a n tt h e n o bj e c t e d t o t h e c h a rg e n o ti n c l u d i n g a n i n s t r u c t i o n u n d er Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re arti cl e 38.23, w hic h w as ov er ru led by the cour t. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 38 .23 (Vernon 200 5). 1 The ju ry retur ned a v erdict findi ng app e lla n t guilty of poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed subs tanc e, c ocai ne, i n an amount more th a n f o u r g ra ms butl ess than 200 g ra ms. The indictm entinclude d en han cem entalle ga t io n s of tw o prior felon y

convictions to w hich appel lan t pl ed tr ue. The ju ry heard the puni shmentev ide nce and as ses sed a s entenc e of5

inc arcerati on i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce for a per iod of 99 y ears. Appel lan t fil ed a Mo ti on for New Tri al, w hic h w as ov er ruled by o p e ra t io n o f

la w. Appel lan t present s four iss ues on appeal. Appell ant’ s f irst is sue cont ends that the tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing appel lan t’ s Mo ti on to Suppress . By his sec ond is sue, appel lan t cont ends th a t th e ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o c or ro borate t he te sti mony of C. W ., w ho app ellantconte nds was an accom plice. App ellant ’s third i ssue co nte nds th at th e trial court er re d i n fail ing to inc lud e an ins tr uct ion under ar ti cl e 38. 23 i n the jur

y ch arg e. Fi nal ly , by his fourth issu e, app ellantco nte nds tha t the e v iden ce w as legally in suf f icient to sup port his conv icti on. W e w il l address onl y appel lan t’ s first and fourth i ss ues. Se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.1. Leg ali ty of the S top By hi s first is sue, appel lan t cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d i n deny ing hi s M oti on to S uppress the coc ain e found by the pol ic e w hen t hey

se arched his v ehicle i nci dent to ar re st be c a u s e t h e i n i t i a l s t o p o f h i s v e h i c l e w a s i l l e g a l i n t h a ti tw a s n o ts u p p o rt e d by re asona ble su spi ci on. The State contends that the i nit ial st op of appel lan t w as jus ti fied by the c ommunity

ca re tak ing functi on of the off ic ers. W hen rev iew ing a mot ion to suppress , w e are to give g re at de ferenc e to a tr ial court’s de term inatio n of historical facts an d on mixed q uest ions of law a nd fact tha t require an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor. Guz man v . St ate, 955 S. W .2d 8 5, 89 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)

. Howev er , mi x e d questi ons of law and fact nottur nin g on a n6

ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor

are rev iewed de n ovo . I d

. Se e a ls o V il la re a l v. Stat e, 93 5 S. W .2d 1 34, 1 39 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) (McC or mic k, P.J ., conc ur ri ng ) (i f tri al cour t “ is n o t in appreci abl y

bett er pos it ion ” than the a ppel lat e c our t i n dec idi ng an i ss ue, the a ppel lat e c our

t may i ndependen tl y

dete rmi ne the i ss ue w hil e affordin g deferen ce to t he tr ial co urt’ s fin din g on subs idi ar y factual q uest ion s)

. W here the facts rela ti ng to a moti on to s uppress are undi sput ed and the t ri al cour t’ s r uli ng does not tur n on the c re dib il ity of the w it ness es, a n a p p e lla te c our t rev iews a n order

ov er ru li ng the moti on de n ovo . Johns on v . St ate, 146 S. W .3d 7 19, 7 21 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2004, no pet .)

. W hile no t all encou nte rs w ith the police im p li c a te th e Fourth Ame ndm ent ’s protecti on ag ain st unreason abl e s eiz ure s, sto ppi ng an a utomobi le and det ain ing i ts occ upants co nst it utes a sei z ure, ev en thoug h the pur pose of t he sei z ure is li mite d and the re sul ti ng dete nti on br ief. Del . v . Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653, 99 S.C t. 1391, 59 L. Ed.2d 660 (1 979) ; C or bin v . St ate, 8 5 S .W .3d 2 72, 2 76 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)

. Und er the Four

th Amendment, a s eiz ure mustbe o bje ctiv ely reason abl e i n l ig ht of the par ti cul ar ci rc umstan ces of the case. Terr y v . O hio , 392 U .S. 1, 21 -2 2, 88 S.C t. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889 ( 1968) ; C or bin , 85 S.W .3 d a t 2 7 6. Ass ess ing the re asona ble ness of a s earch or sei z ure req uires a bal anci ng of the p ubl ici nterest and the ind iv idu al’ s ri g ht to be free from ar bit ra ry i nter ferenc e by law enforc ement. Prouse, 440 U. S. a t 654 ; C or bin , 85 S.W .3d a t 276. A s eiz ure bas ed on re asona ble su spi ci on or probabl e c ause w il l g enerall y be re asona ble

. W hren v . U nit ed St ates , 517 U .S. 806, 818, 116 S.C t. 1769, 135 L. Ed.2d 89 (1 996) ; C or bin , 8 5 S .W .3d a t 276

. Howev er , ev en w it hout re asona ble su spi ci on or p ro b a b le ca u s e t h a t a n o f fe n s e h a s b e e n co m m it t e d , a p o li c e o f f ic e r m a y re a s o n a b ly s e ize7

an i ndi v idu al throug h the ex erci se of his community caret aki ng f unct ion . C or bin , 85 S.W .3d at 27 6; W ri g ht v

. Stat e, 7 S.W .3d 148, 151- 52 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)

. For a sei z ure to be jus ti fied by

the communi ty

ca re tak ing functi on, i t mus t hav e been pr imar il y moti v ated by the n eed t o as si st and t he officer ’s bel ief tha t t he need ex is ts must hav e been re asona ble

. See C or bin , 85 S.W .3d a t 277

. As par t of a pol ic e off ic er ’s duty to “s er v e and protect,” an off ic er “m a y sto p and assis ta n individual w hom a reason able person , gi v en th e tot ality of the circum stan ces, w oul d beli e v e i s i n n e e d o f h e l p . ” W r i g h t , 7 S

. W

. 3 d a t1 5 1

. H o w e v e r , t h e c o mmuni ty caretak ing functi on is “t otal ly di v orced” from t he det ect ion , i nv est ig ati on, o r acq uis it ion of evidence relat ing to the vi olatio n of a criminal statute . Corbin, 85 S. W .3d at 276 -77. T hus, for the e x ercise of

the com mu nity careta king fu nction t o j u s t if y a seiz ure, its prima ry pur pose must be for the welfare of the ind iv idu al in need of as si sta nce. I d. at277. If iti s d eter mined that a s eiz ure w as pr imar il y mot ivated to fulfil l the c ommunity caretak ing functi on, i t must then be deter mined w hether the off ic er ’s bel ief tha t t he person needed hel p w as re asona ble . Cor bin , 85 S.W .3d a t 277 ; W ri g ht, 7 S. W .3d a t 151 -5 2. In ev alu ati ng the re asona ble ness of the off ic er ’s beli ef that hel p w as needed, co urts mayl ook to four non- ex cl usi v e factors (hereafter, “the W ri g ht fact ors” ): (1) the nature and lev el of the dis tres s e xhibited by

the ind iv idu al; ( 2) the loc ati on of the ind iv idu al; ( 3) w hether the individual w as alon e an d/o r had acce ss to assistan ce oth er than thatof fered bythe of

f icer; and ( 4) t o w h a t e xt e n t t h e i n d i v i d u a l , i f n o t a s s i s t e d , p re s e n t e d a d a n g e r t o h i ms e l f or others. Id. In rev iew ing these fact ors, the nature and lev el of dis tress ex hib it ed i s e nti tl ed to t he g re ates t w eig ht. C or bin , 85 S.W .3d a t 277

.In anal y si s o f the t ria l co u rt ’s rul ing on t he M oti on to Suppress , w e w il l ass ume, 2 w it hout deci din g , t hat t he communi ty caretak ing functi on jus ti fies a s eiz ure of an i ndi v idu al other than the ind iv idu al bel iev ed to be in need of as si sta nce. But see W ri g ht, 7 S. W .3d at 15 1- 52 (may

stop and assi st the i ndi v idu al ex hib it ing di stress and bel iev ed to be i n need of assistan ce). 8 In t he presentca se, i t i s u ndi sput ed th at C ar ri ll o l ack ed reasonable su spi ci on or probabl e c ause to s top a ppel lan t’ s v ehi cl e. Ca rril lo prov ide d no tes ti mony thathe was aw are of or

su s pe c te d th atapp el l an t w as in v ol v ed in the c om mi s s i on o f a c r i me a t th e ti me Ca rr il lo st o p p e d h is ve h ic le

. Fu rt h e r, Ca rr il lo sp e c if ic a ll y t e s t if ie d t h a th e d id n o to b s e rve appel lan t v iol ate a ny

traff icl aw s p ri or

to the s top. Therefore, appel lan t c ontends thatthe ini ti al sto p w as il leg al and t hat a ny ev ide nce dis cov ered as a resul t of the s top was tai nted by the ill e gality

of the s top a nd th e tr ial co ur t er re d i n al low ing thi s e v ide nce ov er appel lan t’ s o bje cti on. T he St ate , howev er, cont end s thatt he stop o f a ppe llant’s v ehicle was leg al beca use the s top was effect uated in furtherance of the o f f ice r’s co mmunity

ca re tak ing functi on. 2 T he reco rd r e f le cts tha t C.W .’s mot her con tacte d the police w hen C.W . failed to return hom e f rom th e foot ball ga m e a tthe expecte d time . Carri llo testif ied th at his “bigg est con c er n” i n s to pp i ng ap pe l l an t’ s v eh i c l e w as “ [t]h e c hi l d’ s s afe ty be i ng th at s he was a juvenile and he w as in his 30's (sic).” How ever, Carrillo f urthe r te stif ied tha t he was aw are that appella nt di d nothav e a v ali d dr iv er ’s l ic ense, bas ed on pr ior enc ounters w it h appel lan t. Therefore, w e conc lud e that thi s tes ti mony ra is ed a fact q uestio n as to the prima ry mo tiv ation for the stop . Th is fa ct issue w as imp liedly resolved by the trial court in favor of th e v alid exercise of t he com mu nity careta king fu nction . In rev iew ing a tri al court’s ru li n g o n a m o ti o n to suppress , w e may not si t asa s econd tr ier of fact det er mini ng theW h i l e C a r r i l l o s p e c i fi c a l l y t e s t i fi e d t h a t h e d i d n o t s t o p a p p e l l a n t ’ s v e h i c l e bas ed 3 on his know led g e that appel lan t did not hav e a dr iv er ’s li cens e, w e ag re e w it h ap p ell ant that, at tr ial , t his tes ti mony w as suffici ent to rais e a factq uest ion as to the t ru e moti v ati on for t he s to p. The refo re, w e ag ree w i th ap pe l l an t’ s th i rd i s s ue th at th e tr i al c ou rt er red in faili ng to submi t an ins truc ti o n i n the jur y ch arg e i n ac cordance w it h ar ti cl e 38. 23. See Mu rp hy v . St ate, 640 S .W .2 d 297, 299 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1982) ( jur y i nst ru cti on req uired w he n ev i de nc e rai s es a fact q ue s ti on reg ardi ng t he l eg al i ty o f t he s ea rc h or

s ei z ure). Howev er , bec ause w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing appel lan t’ s M oti on to Sup press, th e t rial court’s erroneo us failure to inst ruct the jury in accorda nce wi th article 38.23 is rendered moot. 9 credi bil ity

and demeanor

of w it ness es. Se e St ate v . R oss , 32 S.W .3d 8 53, 8 58 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)

. Thus, we m u stac ceptthe tr ial co urt’ s i mpli ed det er minat ion that Carrill o ef

fec t u a ted the sto p of

app ellantbase d on a primary motivation to f ulf ill his communi ty

ca re tak ing functi on. 3 For a s eiz ure to be j ust ified as an e x erci se of the c ommunity ca re tak ing functi on, a n of f icer’s subjective belief

thatthe seizure is necessa ry to rend er assistan ce to a p erson in need mus t be show n to hav e been obj ect iv ely reason abl e. Id. In as ses si ng the re asona ble ness of the o ff ic er ’s bel ief, w e l ook to t he four W ri g ht fact ors. T he f ir s t , a n d m ost imp ortan t, W rig ht facto r is the natu re and lev el of the distre ss ex hib it ed by

the ind iv idu al. I d. In t he presentca se, R ose tes ti fied th at s he w as “c oncer ned” abouther daug hter

no t re turni ng home fro m the football g ame at the designat ed tim e an d in the designate d ma nne r. R ose a lso testif ied th at she told the police that she did not w ant h e r d a u g hter i n a c ar w it h appel lan t, but s he prov ide d no further ela borati on as to w hy she did not w ant her daug hter

w it h appel lan t. The onl y ev ide nce of the n ature and lev el of C.W .’ s d is tress at the ti m e t hat a ppel lan t w as sto pped was that C. W . w as n o m o re t h a n o n e a n d a h a l f h o u rs l a t e a n d t h a t , fo r s o me u n s t a t e d r eason ,10

Rose d id n o twa n tC.W . in a v ehicle wi th ap pellan t. W e con clude thatthis evi den ce is ins uff ic ien t t o es tabl is h tha t C .W . ex hib it ed a nature and lev el of dis tress su ff ic ie nt t o ind ep e n d e n t l y j u s t i fy t h e s t o p o f a p p e l l a n t a s a n o bj e c t i v e l y re a s o n a b l e e x e rc i s e of the communi ty

ca re tak ing functi on. Howev er , w hil e the first W ri g ht fact or i s e nti tl ed to the g rea te stwe igh t, iti s n ot alw ays dispo sitiv e. Id. T he th ree rem aining facto rs help to giv e mo re d ef inition to th e f irst factor and mayrev eal that a par ti cul ar lev el of dis tress is more or le ss se ri ous dependi ng on th e presenc e or

abs ence of these factors. Id. I n l ooki ng a t th e s e cond factor , t he loc ati on of t he i ndi v idu al, the re cord reflect s t hat a ppel lan t w as sto pped a coupl e of hous es before h e reache d C .W .’ s h ome and that Car ri ll o w as aw are of the prox imi ty of the s top t o C. W .’ s h ome as a re su lto f h is hav ing recent ly

sp oken w it h R ose at t he hous e. The proximity of the sto p to C.W .’s h om e and t he reaso nab le inferen ce tha t app ellantwas in the p ro ces s o f taki ng C .W . home miti g ates a gai n stC .W . bei ng i n s uff ic ien t di stress to jus ti fy the s top. The thi rd factor ask s w hether the ind iv idu al in dis tress w as alo ne and/ or h a d a cc e ss to ass is tanc e oth er than thatoffered by

the off ic er . As to t he i nit ial st op, Carrill o test if ied th at he could no t iden tif y any i ndividuals in app ellant ’s v ehicle n or could he ide ntif y the nu mb er of individuals in the v ehicle. T here fore, this fa ctor could not sup port the i nit ial st op. Fi nal ly , t he fourt h factor , the extent to w hic h the i ndi v idu al, i f not as si ste d, posed a da ng er

to hims elf

o r o th e rs , w eig hs ag ain st the s top. The record prov ide s n o ev ide nce of how

C .W . w as pla ced in dang er bygett ing a ri de home from appell ant. To the extent that the four

th fact or i s to be appl ied to appel lan t, there i s n o ev ide nce that appel lan t w as dr iv ing errati cal ly

or in a manner

that w oul d pose a dang er to hims elf or to others on11

the roadway s. Also, the re w as no ev iden ce tha t app ellantpose d a thre at to C.W , rathe r, the o nly ev ide nce w as that Ros e di d notw ant C .W . w it h appel lan t. Co n s id e ri n g t h e W ri gh tfa c t o rs i n l ig h to f t h e t o t a li ty o f

t h e ci rc u m s t a n c e s , we conc lud e tha t t he ev ide nce faile d to est abl is h tha t t he s top o f appell ant’ s v ehi cl e w as an obj ect iv ely re asona ble ex erci se of t he communi ty caretak ing functi on. As the S tate does not d is put e thatthe sto p w as not s uppor ted b y probabl e c ause or

reason abl e s uspi ci on and becau se w e conc lud e that the s top was not s how n to hav e been a v ali d ex erci se of the communi ty

ca re tak ing functi on, we c oncl ude that the s top was il leg al and, therefore, the c o c a in e wh ic h wa s su b s e qu e n t ly fo u n d wa s t h e f ru ito f t h e il le ga l s t o p . S e e C ro s b y v. Stat e, 75 0 S. W .2d 7 68, 7 80 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1987)

. Therefore, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial cour t er re d i n deny ing appel lan t’ s M oti on to Suppress thi s e v ide nce. Harm Havi ng fou nd e r ror

i n th e de ni al o f ap pe l l an t’ s M ot i on t o Su pp res s , w e mu s t al so condu ct a har m anal y si s t o det er mine w hether the er ro r cal ls for rev ersal of the j udg ment. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2. The har m anal y si s for the er ro neous admiss ion of ev ide nce obtai ned in v iol ati on of t he F our

th A mendment i s R ule 44.2 (a )' s c onst it uti onal st andard. Her nandez v . St ate, 60 S. W .3d 1 06, 1 08 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e must rev erse the t ri al cour t' s j udg ment, unl ess w e det er mine bey ond a re asona ble doubtthat the e rror di d not cont ri bute to ap pel lan t' s c onv icti on or puni shment

. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2( a)

. The q uest ion is w hether

the tr ial co urt' s d eni al of Appel lan t' s M oti on to S uppress and it s a dmis si on of the ev ide nce w ere har mles s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt . See W il li ams v . State, 958 S.W .2d12

186, 194 ( Tex .C ri m. Ap p . 1 997)

. In ap ply ing the "har mles s e rror " tes t, w e as k w hether there i s a "reaso nabl e possi bil ity " thatthe er ro r mig ht ha v e c ontr ibu ted t o the co nv icti on. Mo sl ey v . St ate, 983 S. W .2d 249, 259 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1998) , cer t. deni ed, 526 U .S. 1070, 119 S. Ct . 146 6, 14 3 L.E d.2d 550 ( 1999)

. In t he present

ca se, the ev ide nce obtai ned as a resul t of the il leg al sto p formed the basi s o f appell ant’ s c onv icti on. After carefull y rev iew ing the re co rd and per forming the required harm ana ly sis unde r Texas Rule of App ellate Proced ure 44 .2(a), w e are un able to de term ine be y ond a reaso nab le dou bt that the errone ous adm ission of the coca ine did notcontribu te to app ellant ’s convi ction. The refore, be cause the trial court’s error in deny ing appel lan t’ s M oti on to Suppress wa s h a rmful to ap pel lan t, w e w il l re v erse the jud g ment. Legal Suf f iciency By hi s four th is sue, appell ant conte nds that the e v ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent t o supp ort his conviction. App ellant ’s arg um entconce rn in g the suf f iciency of

the evidence is that th ere w ere insuf f icient links to est ablish th at ap pellan t posse ssed t h e n a rcotics if C.W .’s testim ony had bee n prop erly excluded as insuf f iciently corrobo rated a c c o mp lice tes ti mony . Howev er , ev en w ere w e to deter mine that C. W . w as an ac compl ic e and her tes ti mony

w as not s uff ic ien tl y

co rroborated, an is sue w e need not a ddress i n thi s o pin ion due t o our

resol uti on of app ell ant’ s c hal len g e of the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of his M oti on to Suppress , s ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 1, we would have to consid er her testim ony in13

deter mini ng w hether

the ev ide nce w as leg all y su ff ic ien t. See Green v . Stat e, 89 3 S. W .2d 536 , 540 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 5) (w hen suf f iciency of

ev iden ce is challenged followi ng a jury trial, app ellate courts consider all of the evidence, w het her properly or im p ro p e rly adm itted ). W hile no t expressly challen ged by his legal suf f iciency iss u e , we mustalso consid er the co caine thatwe have prev iously conclu ded w as imp rope rly adm itted in ass ess ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce. Se e i d. Con si der ing al l of the ev ide nce, w hether proper ly or improper ly admi tted, i n the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce w as suffici ent to es tabl is h tha t appel lan t i ntent ion all y

and know ing ly

pos ses sed a c ontroll ed s ubst a n ce , cocai ne, i n an a mo u n t o f fo u r g ra ms o r mo re , b u t l e s s t h a n 2 0 0 g ra ms . W e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s l eg al suffici ency

ch all eng e. Con cl usi on H a v i n g d e t e r mi n e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt c o mm i t t e d re v e rs i b l e e r ro r in deny ing appel lan t’ s Mo tion to Suppress , w e rev erse the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment and remand for further proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Publ is h. Pi rt le, J. , c oncur ri ng .