### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00035-CR Roy Joe Bail

ey, Appel lant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HARRIS COUNTY, 337T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 808,081, HONORABLE ROBERT D. JO NES, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appe llantRoy Joe Bai

le y was ch arge d w i th tam peri n g w i th phy sical evi den ce. See Te x. Penal

Code A nn . § 37.09(We st Supp . 200 1) . A jur y found Bailey guilty o f the offense , a nd after Bailey plead ed t ru e t o t wo enhanc ement pa r ag r ap hs, t he t r ial c o ur t se nt en ce d h im to thirty-three years in the Institut ional

Div isi on of the Texas Depart men t o f Cri mi nal Justice, pursu ant to a ple a ag re em en t. On appeal, Bail

ey co mplains tha t t he t rial co ur t er re d by amending t he indict ment on t he da y of trial an d th at th e ev i den ce

i s l eg al l y an d f ac tual l y i n suf f i ci en t to sup po rt t he co nvictio n. We affirm the c onvict ion. BACKGROUND

Of f i cer B ri an Sei del , a dep ut y with t he Harris C ounty Sheri ff ’s Of fi ce, testifi ed that on March 17, 1999, at approxim ately 2:20 in the afternoon, he was

patro ll in g a k now n heavy2

narcoticsarea when

he n ot ic ed a veh ic les to pped i n the roadway

in a m ovin g la ne of traf fi c. Appe llantan d t wo o t he rmale s w er e s t an din g o ut sid e t he ve hic le. Whe n S eid el p as se d b y t he ve hic le a sec ond t ime, ap pellant wa s d ri vi ng the ca r an d Se i de l noti ce d the veh

i cl e’ s r eg i stra

ti on had ex pired. Seide l turned on hi s ligh

ts to stop t he veh ic le , and appe ll ant event ually

complied. Upo n Seidel’s re qu est, appella

nt exi ted t he vehi cle, displaying a syr inge ca p o n t he dr iver’s sea t . S usp ect ing t he presence of n arcoti cs i n the ca r, Seid el place d ap pellant i n th e b ac k s ea t of hi s p atrol ca r, b ut di d n ot han dc uff h i m . Se i de l th en re tur n ed to ap pe l l an t’s ca r to s pe ak to the p ass engers

and n ot ic ed a bl

ack bag o n t he fr o nt se at wit h a g reen l eafy substanc e i

nsi de that Seidel

recogniz ed as m

arih uana. He t oo k t he marihua na t o his p at ro l car a nd plac ed it on t he dashb oard. At t hat point, Sei del in form ed appe l l an t that he wasund er arre st, bu

t sti l l di d not handcuf

f hi m . Seide l then returned

t o a ppe llant’s c ar t o c ond uct an invent or y sear ch. Durin g that sea rc h, he di scovered a bl

ack bag on the f

ront passenger f

loorboard, wi

th a whi te powdered substance in si de that he suspected was co ca ine . He als o fo un d mo ne y in t he ba g a nd t wo syr ing es in the trunk. The cocain

e was i nsi de a pla s tic ba

ggie pla ced i n a coi n purse i nsi de the l arger black bag. Sei del re t ur ned t o his p at ro l car a nd put the black bag o n the dr iver’s seat befor e ret urning to appellant’s ve hic le to continue

the i nv en tory search. W

hen Seide l returned to hi s patrol car and opened the b la ck bag t o field t est its c ont ent s, he fou nd t hat t he whi te powdered substance wasgon e. A t th at p oi n t, Seide l or der ed a ppe llant o ut of t he patro l c ar and ha ndcuf fed hi m. A s appel

la nt stepped out , Seidel noticed that ap pell

ant’s pants were unbutt oned and sli pped do wn. He also sa

w s ome p owd er on

t he back seato f his pa

trol ca r; h e r ec ov er ed

th e p owder

f rom th e b ac k s ea

t, a s w el l as f rom un dernea th1 It appea rs as i f Marc h h ad ori gi na l l y be en spe l l ed “ MA RCY .” 3 t he seat and placed i

t in a b aggi e. He then n

ot if ie d Ser gea nt Danny Billi

ngsley abo ut t he sit uat ion and reque sted h

i s as si stan ce. A s he wai ted f or Bi l l i ng sl ey to arr i ve , Se i de l retu rn ed ap pe l l an t to the pa trol car . Appe llant t hen beg an having sei zures. Once Bi

ll in gsl ey arriv ed, an ambulanc e wa s disp at ched , a nd app ellant wastrans

ported to the h

ospi tal . Bi ll in gsl ey fol lowed appel

la nt to the hospi

tal, whi le Seide l stay ed b ehi nd to f i nish his se arch . Bill in gsl ey testifi ed that at t he h

ospital , he was presen

t when em

ergen cy roo m personnel fou nd a p last ic bagg ie pr ot ru ding fr o m ap pe llant ’s r ec t um. T he ba gg ie app ear ed t o ha ve a trace amount of cocai

ne i n i t. The baggi e wa s late r te ste d and determi ned to have l

ess than ten milligr ams of

coc ai n e i n i t. Th e h osp i tal rec ords ref l ec ted tha t ap pe l l an t tes ted pos i ti ve f orco caine and can na ba noi d, an d the caus e of his se izures

wasdi agn

osed a s “ cocai

ne i nge sti on.” DISCUSSI ON By hi s f irst i ssue, appel

la n t co mplains tha t t he t rial co ur t er re d by amending t he indict ment on t he da y the trial comm enced, over hi

s obj ection. On

the fi rst day of tri al , the trial

judge am ended the i

ndi ctmen t by correcti ng th e sp el l i ng of the w ord “M arch .” 12 Articl e 28.10 r eads as foll ows: A rt. 28 .10 . A

men dm en t of i nd i ctm en t or i nf orm ati on (a) Af ter noti ceto the de f en da nt, a m atte r of f orm or s ub sta nc e i n a n i nd i ctm en t or i nf or mati on may b e a men de d a t an y ti me b ef oreth e date

th e tr i al on th e m eri ts commen ces. On t he re que st of t he de fendant , t he co ur t shall allow t he de fendant not less t han 10 days, or a sho rt er per iod if requ est ed by de fendant , t o r esp ond to t he amend ed indict ment o r infor matio n. (b) A m at t er o f fo r m o rsu bs t an ce in a n in di ct men t o rinfo r mat io n ma y a l so b e am ended af ter th e tri al on th e m eri ts com men ce s i f th e def en da n t doe s n ot ob j ec t. (c) An indict ment o r infor matio n may not be am en de d over th

e d ef en da nt’ s ob j ec ti on as t o fo rm o r su bst ance if . . . t he su bst ant ial right s o f the defend ant are prejudi ced. Tex . Code Cri

m . Proc. A

nn . art. 28.10(We st 1989 ).

4 Ar t icle 28. 10 of

the Cod e of Cri m i na l Procedu re 2 gov er n s a men dm en t of i n di ctm en ts and provides that amen

dme nts m ay be m ade at any

tim e bef ore t he trial

comm ences s o long ast he defen dan t is a ll owed ten days to respond to t he am endm ent, if requested. Tex. Code Crim . Proc. An n. a rt. 28.10(a

) (We st 1989 ). An

in dictment m

ay not be am

ended once the tri al

hascomm

enced if th e def en da n t ob j ec ts to th e a

men dm en t. Id. ar t . 2 8. 10( b). In a ddit ion, an amend ment may no t be ma de on the date of tria l be f ore the tri

al ha s b egun . Sodipo v. Sta te , 8 15 S .W. 2d 5 51, 556 (T ex. Cri m . App. 1991 ) (op. on reh’ g).

As sum i ng th e tri al courter re d in t his case by amending t he indict ment on th e d ay of t he trial , we must conduct a harm an al ys is . We wi

ll dis regard the error unless we co nc lud e t ha t it aff ectedappel

l ant’s sub stanti al

rig hts. Tex . R. App. P. 44. 2; Wrigh t v. State , 28 S.W.3d 526, 531-32 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2000 ), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 885 (200 1).5 In t his case , t he t rial co ur t co rr ect ed a t ypog ra phical er ro r in t he ind ictment by co rr ect ingone lett er in the s pelling o f the mont h in which the char ged offense was alleged t o ha ve occurred. Eve

n wi thout the c orrecti on, howev er, t he r e w as amp le inf o r mat io n in

the i nd i ctm en t f rom whi ch app ellant c ou ld have g leaned t he dat e t he o ffense wa s allege d t o ha ve occ ur re d. F i rs t, the date was not s o m

i ss pe l l ed asto ren de r i t un i de nti f i ab l e or ca pa ble of be ing mistak en fo r a not her mont h. In add itio n, t he indict ment r eflect s t hat app ellant was arres t ed o n “3/1 7/ 99, ” and t he und er lyi ng co mplaintcontain s the correct spell in g of “M arch.” Moreover, appell ant’s attor ney

f i l ed moti ons f or psych iatric exam

in ations and in

them, she noted t he date o f the al leged off enseas March 17, 1999. Thus, a ppellant’s counsel

was not co nfused by the missp elling of t he wo rd Mar ch. The indict ment ot herwise al le ged the charged

of f ense wi th suf f i ci en t sp ec i f i ci ty b y i n cl udi n g th e c orre ct c oun

ty , c our t, off ense, caus e n

um ber, date a

nd y ear to put app el

l an t on notice to prep are his de f en se. We concl

ude appella nt’s sub stantial

righ ts were not affe cted and overrule hi s f irst i ssue. By hi s second an

d third issues, appel

la nt chal le nges the l egal and f actual suf fi ci ency of the e vi den ce. To d ete

rm i n e th e l eg al suf f i ci en cy of th e ev i den ce

to support a co nvi

ction, we vi

ew all t he ev ide nc e in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le t o t he ve r dic t an d a sk if an y ra t io na l t r ier o f fac t co uld have fou nd t he es sent ial elements of t he off en se b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt. See Jac kson v . Virgini a , 44 3 U.S . 30 7, 3 24 ( 197 9); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W .2d 155 , 158-5 9 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1981 ). Revi ewof a fact ual- sufficiency co mplaint r equ ires u s t o c ons ider all of t he evi dence wi thout rega

rd to whether the ev

ide nce is f avorabl e to either

the Stat e or the ap

pel l an t. See Clew

is v. State, 922 S.W.2d 12 6, 129 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 6) . We ar e t o w eigh t he evide nce e qua lly , maint ain in g appr opri ate

defer ence t o t he j ury ’sverdict. Cain v. Sta te , 958 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex. Crim . App.6

1997) . We may fi

nd t he evide nce fac t ually insuffi cient only when t he r eco rd clear ly i ndicat es t hat t he verdict i s wron

g an d m an i f estl y unjust. Id. ; Clew

is , 92 2 S . W. 2d at 13 5. T he st an da r d o f r ev iew is t he sam e for both di

rect and ci rcumstantial

evi dence cas es. King v. Sta te , 8 95 S .W. 2d 7 01, 703 (T ex. Cr im. App. 199 5); Greenv. State , 84 0 S . W. 2d 39 4, 40 1 ( T ex . Cr im . Ap p. 1992). The Stat e m ay pr ove i ts c as e b y ci rc um sta n ti al e vid ence so l

ong as i t pro ves al

l of the el em ents of the ch

arged offense bey

ond a reas onab l e doubt. Easley v. State , 986 S.W.2d 264, 271 (Tex. App.—San Ant o nio 1998, no pet.) (citi

ng Jackson , 443 U .S. at 319). The j ury is the exclus ive judge of t he fact s t o be pr ove n, t he we ight t o be given t he t es t imo ny, and t he cre di

bi l i ty of the wi tnes ses . Tex . Code Cri

m . Proc. A

nn . art. 38.04(We st 1979 ); Alvarado v. State , 912 S.W.2d 199, 207 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 3) . T he jur y may acc ept or re

ject any or all of the ev i den ce pre sen ted b y ei ther p arty . Saxton v. St

ate , 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1991) . The

j ury is fr ee t o dr aw r ea so na ble i nf eren ces f rom b asi c f acts to ul tim ate f acts. Welch
v. State , 993 S.W.2d 6 90, 693 (T ex. App .—S an Anto nio 199 9, no pet .) ; Hernan dez v. Sta te , 939 S.W.2 d 692, 6 93 (Tex . App.—F ort Worth 19 97, pet. ref ’d). Appe llantargu es

th er e w as

n o ev i den ce th at h e i n ge ste d th e m

is si ng cocai ne. He pos i ts that be ca us e a syr ing e w as fo un d in his car , t his indicat ed he was an intr aveno us d ru g us er and that he coul d have had cocai ne i n hi s sy stem due to hi s use of i

t earlier in

the even ing . He further poi n ts o ut t ha t no co ca ine wa s fo un d o n his m outh orperson af

ter Seidel dis covered the pl astic b ag of c ocai ne wasm i ssi ng. Al though t he pr ese nce o f the syringe s ugg est s t hat app ellant c ou ld have u sed co caine pri orto the sto p, t he Stat e presented evidence f rom which

a jury could conclude that app ell ant also3 In Spector v. State , 746 S.W .2d 945 (Tex . App.—A usti n 19 88, n o pet.) , the de fen

dant was stopped f or speedi ng. The ar re st ing o ffi

cer co nduc t ed a sea rc h of t he vehicle a fte r smelling bur nt marihua na and dis co ver ed a ma rihu ana cig ar et t e. He pla ce d t he c iga re t t e o n t he t ru nk o f t h e defendant’s ca

r; th e def en da n t grabbed thec igar et t e, t or e it in t wo , a nd t hre w t he t wo piece s in a dit ch. This Co ur t co nclude d t hat t he def endan t’s acti ons d

i d not res ul t in the l oss of the evi den tia ry val ue of the ci

garett e si nce the State was abl

e to co nvi ct her for marihua na po sses sion, and there f ore the evi den ce was i ns uf f i ci en t to support a con

vi cti on f or destroy

i ng e vi den ce. Id. at 946. 7 in gestedadd itio nal co caine af ter h e w as pl ac ed i n Se i de l ’s pa trol ca r. F i rs t, Seid el est imated t hat t he ba gg ie t hat he r eco ver ed fr om ap pellant ’s ca r initially cont aine d bet we en threean d f our g ram s of cocain e. Af ter Seidel pla ced the bag

on t he fro nt sea t of his ca r, t he co caine d isapp ear ed; a ppe llant was the onl y pe rs on i n the v ehi cle at the

tim e. Th e j ury

wa s a lso allo we d t o ex amine Se ide l’s ve hic le to determi ne if i t was possib le

for appel la nt to reach the b ag contain in g the cocain

e, which was pl

aced on t he f ront se at of the ca

r, f rom th e b ack s eat. In a ddit ion, Seid el te st ifi ed t hat co caine w as fo und o n t he ba ck se at o f his pa trol ca r. A l thou gh the re wasno c oca

i ne f oun d i n a ppe l l an t’s mouth or on his person, a baggi

e contain in g cocain e resi due was f

ound prot rudin

g from hi s rectum, f

urther evi dence th at h e ob tai n ed an d em pti ed th e b ag gi

e th at had be en on the f

ront seat. Furtherm

ore, app ellant did no t go int o co nvu lsio ns u nt il aft er Seid el disco ver ed t he co caine w as missing, and t he hospi talrecords indi

cate that appellant was diagnosed wit h c o ca ine ing es t io n. While cir cu mst an t ial, this evi dence is suf

fi ci ent to suppo rt t he j ury’ s f in din g that appell

ant tampered wi

th the cocain

e. Relying on Spector

v. State , 746 S.W.2 d 945 ( Tex . App.—A usti n 19 88, n o pet.), 3 app ellant further argues that beca use Seidel was abl e to r ecover the cocain

e that was spi ll

ed ont o t he back se at of the pa trol ca r, i t wa s n ot al tere d, des troy

ed , or concealed; t he co ca ine r ema ine d in pla in viewand i ts evi dentia

ry v al ue was not destroyed. Seide l testi fi ed that when h

e fi rst opened the bl ack bag co nt aining t he cocain

e, he observed about three or fou r g ra ms of co caine. Ho weve r, t he co caine8

that Seide l was abl

e to r ecover from

the back se at of hi s veh ic l e and f rom un derneath the sea

t am ounted to onl

y 0.06 gr ams. Th e co caine r esidu e t hat was re co ver ed fr om t he bag gie fo und pr ot ru ding from

appella nt’s rectum totaled less than tenm i l l i gram s. Furtherm

ore, t he h ospital records in dic ated that appel lant had swallowed eight bal ls of crack, a large quantity of cocai ne. Thus, sufficient evi

dence was presen

ted for the jury

to determi

ne that appella

nt destroyed

enough ev

ide nce to avoi d pr

ose cu ti on f ora third degree

f elony . See id. at 946 (holdi ng ev ide nce i s destroyed whe

n evi den tia ry va lue is des troye d); compare Tex. Heal th & Saf ety Code An

n. § 481.115(c) (West Supp. 2001) (p os sess ion o f co nt ro lled subs t ance weighing be t wee n o ne and f our grams i s thi

rd degree f elony ) with id. § 481.115(b) (possessi on of l ess than o ne gr am o f co nt r o lled su bst an ce is s t at e ja il f elony ). Moreov er, un like in Spector , he re appella nt was charged wi

th destroyin

g, concealin

g, oralte ring e vidence . T he de fendant in Spector wa s accus ed

onl y of de stroy i ng ev i de nc e, n ot co ncea ling

or alte ring it . T hus, even if we w er e t o a gr ee t hat insufficientev i den ce ex i sts to establi sh that appella

nt destroyed evi

dence, there is

suf fi ci ent evi dence to conclude tha

t appell ant concealed oralte re d it . B y placing t he cocain e i n hi s m out h or rectum, appella

nt concealed the cocain

e. See Duncan v. Board of Disc iplinary Appeals , 898 S.W.2d 759, 761 (Tex. 1995) (defi ni ng conceal

as “[t]o hide, sec re t e, or wit hhold fro m the knowle dge of others”) (citi ng Bl ack’s La w Di ctionary

261 (5 th ed. 197 9)) ; Anzaldua v . State , 696 S.W .2d 911 , 912 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1985 ) (sam

e); Hollingsw

orth v. State , 1 5 S .W. 3d 5 86, 595 (T ex. App. —Au s tin 2000, n o pet. ) (holdi

ng unde r se cti on 37. 09, defend ant must have co nc ea led co ca ine wit h int en t t o impa ir its av ai la bi li ty as ev ide nce in i nv esti gati on). And bec aus e ap pellant re duc ed t he amo unt of c oc aine initially discove re d by Se ide l,9

he al tered the ev

i den ce. See Spector , 746 S.W.2d at 946 (h ol di ng f orm ch an ge s wi thou t a l oss of evi den tia ry va lu e a r e me r e a t t emp t s t o de st r o y o r a lterations ). W e h ol d th at th i s e v i den ce i s b oth leg ally and f actual l y suf f i ci en t to support appe l l an

t’s c onv i cti on an d overrule hi s se cond

and thi rd issues. CONCLU SION

Having overruled all

of appell ant’s issues, w e a f

f i rm the tri al cou rt’ s j udg men t of co nvictio n.

__________________________________________ Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: Jul

y 26, 2001 Do No t Publis

h