Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 29, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-17-00599-CR

CRYSTAL TYLENE FONTENOT, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law #3 & Probate Court 

Brazoria County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 227566 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

 Appellant Crystal Tylene Fontenot appeals her conviction for the offense of 

falsification of drug test results. The offense is intentional or knowing possession 

with intent to use a substance or device designed to falsify drug test results. See Tex. 

Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.133 (Vernon 2017). She contends the evidence is 

legally insufficient to support her conviction. Because legally sufficient evidence 

supports appellant’s conviction, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
2

BACKGROUND

 Appellant was charged with intentional or knowing possession with intent to 

use a substance designed to falsify drug test results, which is a Class B misdemeanor. 

A two-day jury trial was held on July 17, 2017. 

At trial, Angleton Police Department Officer Jordan Driscoll testified that she 

stopped appellant for a traffic violation after midnight on January 25, 2017. Officer 

Driscoll testified she asked appellant “a series of questions, including where she 

works, her phone number, where she lives.” Appellant stated she worked for her 

dad “but she was attempting to get a job at the plant working for Zachry.” Officer 

Driscoll testified that she arrested appellant because a routine records check revealed 

appellant had outstanding warrants for traffic violations. 

Officer Driscoll testified that she conducted an inventory search of appellant’s 

car together with Angleton Police Department Officer Corey Budnick, who was at 

the scene to assist her. During the car search, the officers found a box labeled 

“Magnum Detox Fetish Synthetic Urine” on the floorboard behind the driver’s seat. 

Officer Driscoll testified that she believed appellant intended to use the synthetic 

urine to “pass her drug test for Zachry because she was attempting to get a job there.” 

Officer Driscoll testified that she believed probable cause existed to also arrest 

appellant for the offense of falsification of drug test results because appellant “kept 

advising that she was attempting to get a job at Zachry, as well as she was on 

probation.” Appellant told Officer Driscoll that her next probation appointment was 

scheduled for January 27, 2017. 

During the car ride to the police station, Officer Driscoll did not ask appellant 

who the synthetic urine belonged to; instead, appellant volunteered that she bought 

it for a friend. The State introduced into evidence the box with the synthetic urine 

that officers found in appellant’s car. The box was labeled, “Magnum Detox Fetish
3

Synthetic Urine, 100 Percent Guaranteed Quality, 2 Fluid Ounces.” The label 

further stated, “One-time usage kit includes synthetic urine sample, squirt bottle with 

cap and thermometer, heating pad, details, instructions and guarantee. Protect your 

DNA from genetic profiling, undetectable, easy and effective, authentic appearance, 

toll free support, 100 percent guaranteed quality.” Officer Driscoll testified that, 

based on her investigation, she believed appellant “intentionally or knowingly 

possessed with intent to use a substance designed to falsify drug test results.” 

Officer Budnick also testified at trial, confirming that he and Officer Driscoll 

found a box of synthetic urine during the inventory search of appellant’s car. Officer 

Budnick testified that in his experience people “typically” use synthetic urine to 

falsify a drug test. Officer Budnick testified he has never “seen or . . . heard of 

individuals using synthetic urine for other purposes” besides falsifying drug tests. 

Appellant’s community supervision officer, Laurel Latourneau, testified that 

her duties included contacting the defendant and checking in monthly, making sure 

the defendant is complying with community supervision conditions, performing 

drug tests, and making field visits. Latourneau testified that appellant had a meeting 

scheduled with Latourneau for January 24, 2017, but appellant rescheduled the 

meeting to January 27, 2017. Latourneau explained that she tested appellant’s urine 

randomly during scheduled visits, and appellant was aware she was subject to 

random drug tests. Latourneau also testified that she was familiar with substances 

and devices used to falsify drug tests. When she was shown the synthetic urine found 

in appellant’s car and asked if she recognized the substance, Latourneau stated that 

“[i]t’s a falsification device generally used to falsify drug test results.” 

The State also played Officer Driscoll’s police car video of appellant’s traffic 

stop and arrest for the jury. The video confirmed appellant told Officer Driscoll that 

she had applied for a job at Zachry two days earlier. Appellant stated that she was 
4

“on probation now” and that she had a meeting scheduled with her probation officer 

on January 27, 2017. Appellant was handcuffed and placed in Officer Driscoll’s 

police car. The video showed Officers Driscoll and Budnick conducting an 

inventory search of appellant’s car and finding a box of synthetic urine. After 

completing the inventory search, Officer Driscoll returned to the police car and 

appellant asked why her car was searched without consent. Officer Driscoll 

explained that no consent was required to conduct an inventory search of appellant’s 

car incident to arrest. 

On the ride to the police station, appellant asked Officer Driscoll how long it 

would take for her traffic ticket charge to be set in court. Officer Driscoll responded 

that appellant “has new charges now” because she was in possession of synthetic 

urine. Appellant stated she bought the urine at a close-by store. She stated, “[T]hat 

makes me so mad . . . I’m so mad because I did buy it, but I bought it for a friend, 

you know, and I did not know it was illegal.” Appellant continued to talk to Officer 

Driscoll and questioned how synthetic urine was illegal when it could be bought at 

a store. Appellant also stated, “I have to take a pee test for Zachry, for my P.O. 

[probation officer], for everything.” 

The jury found appellant guilty. The trial court sentenced appellant to 

confinement for 80 days with “credit for 85 days spent to apply to . . . jail time.” 

Appellant filed a timely appeal. 

ANALYSIS

 Appellant contends in her sole issue that the evidence is legally insufficient to 

support the jury’s verdict because the testimony presented does not show appellant’s 

“intent to use the synthetic urine to falsify a drug test designed to detect the presence 

of a controlled substance or marihuana.” 
5

The legal sufficiency standard of review is the only standard we apply in 

determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal 

offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Temple v. 

State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We consider the combined and 

cumulative force of all admitted evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom 

in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a jury was rationally 

justified in its verdict. Johnson v. State, 509 S.W.3d 320, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2017). Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and 

circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as 

the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support 

the conviction. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). 

The jury is the sole judge of credibility and weight to be attached to the 

testimony of witnesses. Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 360. We defer to the jury’s 

responsibility to fairly resolve or reconcile conflicts in the evidence, and we draw 

all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict. Kolb v. State, 

523 S.W.3d 211, 214 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. ref’d); see Isassi 

v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In conducting a sufficiency 

review, we do not engage in a second evaluation of the weight and credibility of the 

evidence, but only ensure the jury reached a rational decision. Kolb, 523 S.W.3d at 

214. 

As applicable in this case, a person commits an offense if the person 

knowingly or intentionally uses or possesses with intent to use any substance or 

device designed to falsify drug test results. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 

481.133. Drug test means a lawfully administered test designed to detect the 

presence of a controlled substance or marihuana. Id. 

Appellant argues the evidence is legally insufficient to establish her “intent to 
6

use the synthetic urine to falsify a drug test designed to detect the presence of a 

controlled substance or marihuana” because there is no evidence that (1) appellant 

had a scheduled meeting with an employer or future employer “requiring her to 

submit to a lawfully administered test designed to detect the presence of a controlled 

substance or marihuana;” (2) any random drug test conducted by Latourneau was 

for the purpose of detecting a controlled substance or marihuana; and (3) 

“[a]ppellant’s probation was conditioned on her submitting to drug testing[,] only 

that it was done when requested.”

Contrary to appellant’s contentions, the jury reasonably could have concluded 

based on the evidence presented that (1) appellant knew she was required to submit 

and expected to take a drug test as a condition of her community supervision and in 

connection with her employment application at Zachry; and (2) the test would be 

conducted for the purpose of detecting a controlled substance or marihuana. 

The jury viewed the video of appellant’s January 25, 2017 stop and arrest. It 

could hear appellant inform Officer Driscoll that she applied for employment at 

Zachry and that she had to take a “pee test for Zachry,” evidencing that appellant 

knew she was required to take a drug test and expected to do so at Zachry to gain 

employment. The jury also heard appellant informing Officer Driscoll that she was 

on community supervision and that she rescheduled her meeting with her community 

supervision officer to January 27, 2017. Appellant admitted she was required to 

submit to drug tests as a condition of her community supervision when she told 

Officer Driscoll, “I have to take a pee test . . . for my P.O. [probation officer], for 

everything.” The jury also could have concluded that appellant was worried about 

the officers finding the synthetic urine in her car because she inquired why the 

officers were allowed to search her car without asking for her consent. 

Further, Latourneau testified that appellant had a meeting originally scheduled 
7

for January 24 but rescheduled the meeting for January 27. Latourneau explained 

she tests appellant’s urine randomly during scheduled visits, and that the urine test 

she uses tests, among others, for substances, ph balance, and temperature. She 

explained that appellant knew she was subject to random drug tests. Latourneau 

testified that she was familiar with substances and devices used to falsify drug tests. 

She recognized the synthetic urine found in appellant’s car as “a falsification device 

generally used to falsify drug test results.” 

The jury also heard Officer Budnick’s testimony that in his experience 

synthetic urine is “typically” used to falsify a drug test and that he has never “seen 

or . . . heard of individuals using synthetic urine for other purposes” than falsifying 

drug tests. Officer Driscoll testified she was not “familiar with any other practices” 

involving synthetic urine and believed that based on her investigation appellant 

intended to use the synthetic urine to pass an upcoming drug test. 

Considering all the evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom, 

including the cumulative force of incriminating circumstances, we conclude that the 

jury as the sole judge of credibility and weight to be attached to testimony reasonably 

could have determined that appellant knowingly or intentionally possessed the 

synthetic urine with intent to use it to falsify results of a drug test — a test designed 

to detect the presence of a controlled substance or marihuana — she expected to take 

at Zachry or at the meeting with her community supervision officer. See Johnson, 

509 S.W.3d at 322; Ramsey, 473 S.W.3d at 809; Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 360. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the 

evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. 

Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole issue. 
8

CONCLUSION

 We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

 

 /s/ William Boyce 

 Justice 

Panel consist of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. 47.2(b).