See T e x. H e a lt h & Safety C ode Ann. § 481 .11 2(c) (Vernon 2 001 ). This is a 1 secon d degree fe lony pun ishab le by imp risonm ent in the institutio nal divisi on for any term o f n o tm o re t h a n 2 0 ye a rs o r l e s s t h a n 2 ye a rs a n d a f in e n o tt o e xc e e d $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . T e x. Pen al Code Ann. § 12.3 3 (Verno n 20 03). NO. 07-07 -015 6-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 D APR IL 21 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ T ERESO F. TOVAR, JR., APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 5- 411201; H ON ORABLE BRAD LEY S. UN DE RW OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel la n t T ereso F. Tov ar , J r. appeal s h is co nv icti on by j ur y of the o ffense of posse ssion of

a co ntrolled su bsta nce w ith the in ten t to de liv er in a drug-free z one and his 1 re sul ti ng se ntenc e of forty y ears c onfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex asThe of fense w as enhanc ed, as it occ ur re d w it hin 1000 feet of a par k, a dr ug -free 2 z one . Te x as Health & Safety C ode Ann. § 481 .13 4(b)(1) (Vernon 200 3). T he o f fense also w as enhanc ed bec ause appel lan t had been once before conv icted o f a felony
. Tex . Pe nal Cod e Ann. § 12 .42( c) (1 ) (V er non 200 7)
. 2 Dep artment of Cr imi nal Justi ce. Vi a three is sues , app ell ant c ontends the tr ial co urt er re d 2 in faili ng t o gra n t h is req uestfor a mis tr ial , er re d i n ov er ru li ng appel lan t’ s o bje cti on re g ardin g of

ficer tes ti mony , and er re d i n admi tti ng ex per t opi nio n ev ide nce in absen ce of prop er fou nd at i on . W e affi r m. Back g ro und At t ri al, the Stat e present ed th e tes ti mony of pol ic e of

f ice rs and a c hemis t. Appel lan t t est ified on h is ow n behal f. The ev ide nce show ed that appel lan t had app ro ached the entran ce of

Club Heat in Lu bbo ck during lat e evening b usine ss h ours. In acco rdan ce w ith the club’s routine p ractice, be fore en tering appe llant sub mitt ed to a security guard’s “p at s earch. ” The guard asked appel lan t to remov e a c ig arette cas e from hi s p ock et an d open i t. W hen he di d s o, a pack ag e fell to the g ro und. Itco ntai ned a w hit e s ubst ance. The cl ub’ s s ecur ity

personne l detai ned app ell ant a nd c all ed Lubb ock pol ic e. W hen t he pol ic e c or poral w ho res ponded to t he c all ar ri v ed, t he s ecur ity personne l gave hi m th e ciga re tt e ca se . In sid e th e ca se , h e fo u n d t h re e m o re ba ggie s co n ta in in g a subs tanc e he bel iev ed w as crack co cai ne. A fiel d tes t c onfir med hi s b eli ef. Testi mony from the S tate’ s c hemis t es tabl is hed the subst ance found in appel lan t’ s p oss ess ion , c onsi sti ng of four rock s c ontai nin g co cai ne, h ad a net weig ht of 2.5 5 g ra ms.3 Ana ly sis Fai lur e of Tr ial C our t to Gr ant M is tr ial In ap pel lan t’ s first is sue, he cont ends the tr ial courtabused its di sc re ti on by deny ing his moti on for a mi str ial . Dur ing the Stat e’s di re ct ex aminat ion of t h e c o rp oral, the prosec utor

as ked if the off ic er

w as fam il iar

w it h Clu b Heat. He an sw ered affirmat iv ely and the prosecu tor followed w ith a question asking w het her the of f icer had b een the re “multiple ti mes,” to w hic h he als o ans w ered af f ir mati v ely . Ask ed w hy , t he c or poral answ ered, “ It seems w e g ot many

ca ll s t here s hots fired.” Ap pel lan t i mmediat ely obj ect ed and the t ri al cour t s ust ain ed appe ll ant’ s o bje cti on. Appel lan t t hen re q u e s t e d a n d re c eiv ed an ins tr uct ion to di sreg ard and unsuc ces sfull y mov ed for a mi str ial . W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s d eni al of a mis tr ial under an abus e of di sc re ti on s tandard. Ladd v. State, 3 S .W .3d 5 47, 5 67 ( Tex .C ri m. App. 1999)
. See al so Ar chi e v . St ate, 221 S.W .3d 6 95, 6 99- 700 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)
. Mi str ial i s a dev ic e us ed to hal t t ri al proce edin gs w hen t he error is so prejud icial that expen diture of f urthe r time an d expense w oul d be w ast eful and futil e. Ladd, 3 S. W .3d a t 567 . To dete rmi ne w hether a g iv en er ro r neces si tates a mi str ial , w e mustex amine the p arti cul ar facts of the c ase. Id. A mistrial is re q uired onl y

w hen the impropr iety is cl ear ly cal cul ated to i nflame the min ds of the j ur y and is of suc h a cha racter as to sug g estthe impos si bil ity of w it hdraw ing the impress ion produce d on the mi nds of the j ur y . Hi nojosa v. State, 4 S .W .3d 240, 253 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. See al

so Hawk ins v. Sta te, 1 3 5 S .W .3d 72, 77 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 4) (onlyin extreme ci rc umstan ces , w here the preju dic e i s i ncurabl e, w il l a mi str ial be req uired)
.4

Th e trial court di d n o ta b u s e i t s discretion b y den y ing the mistrial. T he reco rd is cl ear thatthe cor poral’ s s tatementreferred to cal ls on o ther ni g hts , notthe nig ht of a p p e l l a n t ’ s a r re s t . T h e r e fe re n c e t o “ s h o t s f i re d ” w a s n o tc o n n e c t e d w i t h a p p e l l a n t . We see nothi ng i n the st atement to s ug g estthati t wou ld i n cu ra bly i nflame the min ds of the jur y . The ju ry

i s p re sumed to foll ow an i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard. W aldo v . St ate, 746 S. W .2d 7 50, 7 54 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1988) ; Loui s v . St ate, 6 1 S
. W . 3 d 5 9 3 , 598 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2001, pet. re f’d)
. W e find the presumpt ion appl ic abl e here. See also W il ker son v. State, 8 8 1 S
. W . 2 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 7 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 199 4) , cer t. denied, 513 U. S. 106 0, 11 5 S.Ct. 6 71, 130 L.Ed .2d 604 (199 4) (an i nstruct ion to disregard w ill generally cure th e er ror )
. W e res ol v e ap pe l l an t' s fi rs t i s s ue a g ai ns t hi m. Testim ony Reg ardingResults of Field Test In hi s s econd i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends the tr ial courter re d by al low ing the cor poral to t est ify reg ardin g the re sul ts of his field tes t becau se the cor poral w as not q ual ified as an ex per t. A t ri al cour

t’ s r uli ng on w hether

to admitev ide nce is rev iew ed under an abuse of dis c re t i o n s tandard. Mo ntgom er y v . St ate, 810 S.W .2d 3 72, 3 91 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1990) ( op. on reh’ g ). See als o Apol ina r v. State, 155 S.W .3d 1 84, 186 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)
. A t ri al court ab use s its discretion w hen its determ inatio n is outside the zone of reason able dis ag re ement. Gr

een v . St ate, 934 S.W .2d 9 2, 10 1- 02 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. The cor poral tes ti fied that he c onducted a fiel d tes t on one of the ro ck s found o n appel lan t and the subs tanc e tes ted p osi ti v e for coc ain e. The tr ial co u rto verru led the obj ect ion appell ant v oic ed unde r Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce 602 and 702. Ev en i f the tr ial c ou rt er red b y

d oi ng s o, a c on c l us i on w e do n otrea c h, t he e r ror c au s ed a pp el l an t no h ar m.The St ate c ontends the cor poral si mply w as tes ti fyi ng to the resul ts of his f iel d tes t, 3 not t hat t he s ubst ance act ual ly w as coc ain e. See S m it h v. State, 8 74 S. W .2d 7 20, 7 21 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1994, pet. ref’d) ( address ing a s imi lar co ntent ion ). W e need st notadd ress this cont ent ion eith er. 5 See Te x . R . Ap p. P. 44 .2 ( b)
. As no te d, th e St at e pres en te d th e te s ti mo ny of its expert chemi st, w ho al so tes ti fied, w it hout obj ect ion , t hat t he subs tanc e appel lan t poss ess ed w as coc ain e. Acc ordin g to appel lan t’ s a rg ument, that is the same factto w hic h the co rpora l testif ied. Assumin g app ellant ’s arg um entis correct, th e ad mission of the che mist’s 3 tes ti mony

rendered admi ss ion of the cor poral’ s stat ement harml ess . See H icks v. Sta te, 545 S. W .2d 8 05, 8 09 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1977) ; Sm it h v . St ate, 874 S.W .2d 7 20, 7 21 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1994, pet. ref’d) ( hol din g simi lar ex per t testi mony

rendered st admis si on of

ques ti oned test imony

harmle ss , if error ); Fos ter v. Sta te, No. 07-02 -030 3-CR, 2003 W L 21705 257 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo Jul y 23, 2003, pet. re f’d) ( mem. op., not designat ed for pub lication) (chem ist’s testimo ny w as suf f iciently re lia ble an d prop erly admitted i nto e vide n ce s u ch thatany er ro r in all ow ing the pol ic e off ic ers t o tes ti fy to t he compos it ion of the s ubst ances found w as har mles s). M oreov er , app ell ant a ls o tes ti fied that he pos ses sed coc ain e. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Tes ti m ony Reg ar

din g R ati onale for Char gin g Appe ll

ant with Intent

to Del iv er In ap pel lan t’ s fin al is sue on appe al, he c ontends the tr ial co urt er re d i n per mit ti ng the cor poral to tes ti fy to hi s rati onal e for charg ing appel lan t w it h pos ses si on of a c ontroll ed subs tanc e w it h i ntentto deli v er . In s uppor t of hi s a rg ument, appel lan t arg ues that the cor poral lac ked the req uis it e ex per ti se to t est ify

reg ardin g appel lan t’ s i ntent to del iv er

the coc ain e i n hi s p oss ess ion .Al thoug h w e need not rely on it, w e note also that appel lan t testi fied direct ly to the 4 issue, sa y ing his inten t tha t night w as “[f ]or me and my three fem ale f riends th at w ere the re at t he c lub to enj oy

oursel v es. ” 6 Dur ing i ts ex aminat ion of the c or poral, the Stat e ask ed w hat charg e he i nit ial ly fil ed ag ain st appe lla nt an d w hy he d id so. In respon se, the cor poral sta ted, “[ p]os ses si on of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance w it h int ent to del iv er . . . [b]ec ause of the w ay i t w as pack ag ed and he had four bag g ies that w ere all the same.” The tr ial co urt ov er ru led appel lan t’ s o bje cti on made under

T ex as Rul e of

Ev ide nce 702 butg ra nted his req uestfor a r unni ng obj ect ion wh e n t h e S t a t e co n t in u e d qu e s t io n in g t h e co rp o ra l a b o u tt h e fa c t o rs ca u s in g h im t o b e li e ve appel lan t pos ses sed the i ntentto del iv er the coc ain e. As w ith ap pellan t’s secon d issue, ev en w ere w e to ag ree w ith him thatthe trial court er re d by ov er ru li ng his obj ect ion , w hic h findi ng w e do not make, the e rror w oul d notca ll for re v ersal . Rev iew

of the record rev eal s that si mil ar ev ide nce w as int ro duced throug h the testim ony of

ano the r w itness, to w hich th e runn ing obje c t io n d id n o t extend. A Lubb ock pol ic e l ieu tenanttes ti f ie d i n deta il , bot h on directand cross -e x aminat ion , c oncer nin g factors i ndi cat ing one poss ess ing co cai ne also pos ses sed an i ntentto del iv er i t. The factors o n w hic h he w as q uest ion ed i ncl uded t he manner of the d ru g ’s pac kag ing and the number of pa ck ag es. H e c oncl uded hi s d irectex aminat ion by ag re ein g w it h the prosec utor that a pers on enter ing Club Heat w it h cocai ne under ci rc umstan ces su ch as thos e present here “could be ” doing so w ith the inten t to deliv er it. Any error in adm itting the corpo ral’s si mil ar tes ti mony

thus w as not a ca use fo r re versal. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 44. 2( b) ; Leday v. 4 State, 983 S.W .2d 7 13, 7 17 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1998) ; Ma ss ey v. State, 933 S.W .2d 1 41, 1 49 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) ; Jo nes v. State, N o. 07 -9 9- 0463- CR , 200 0 W L 17377 597

(Tex .App. –Amar il lo Nov . 21, 2000, no p et.) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for public a ti o n ). W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue and aff ir m hi s c onv icti on and sent ence.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.