1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 07- 172- CR
S T E VE R . K I NG AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 29 7TH DI STRI CT CO URT OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e l l a n t S tev e R . K i n g ap p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c ti o n for d e l i v e ry o f a
c o n tro l l e d s u b s ta n c e . W e a ffir m . Back gr ound Fo rtW ort h Po l i c e Of f i c e rTr a c y Cr ow e tes ti f i e d t ha to n Ju l y 19, 2005 , sh e w asw or ki ng un der cov erw i t h Det ec t i ve Roy Hudson i n a n a re a o ft ow n
n o to ri o u s fo r dru g ac ti v i ty. S h e sa i d tha t after u n su c c e ss fu ll y a t t e m p ti n g to2

b u yd rug s a t a s u sp e c ted cra c kh o u se , sh e a n d D e t e c ti v eH u d so n , w i th D et ect i ve H udson att he w heel , w er e driv in g to anot herl ocat i on w hen A p p e l l a n t y e l l e d a n d w a i v e d to th e m . D et ect i ve H udson m ade a u- t ur n and dr ove t ow ar d A ppel l ant , w ho w as
w al ki ng aw ay f r om a m an si t t i ng on a chai r next t o a D um pst er . A ppel l antr an up t o t he vehi cl e and spoke t o D et ect i ve H udson . O f f i cerC r ow e t est i f i ed t hat A p p e lla n ta s k e d , “ [W ]h a ta r e y o u lo o k in g f o r ? ” a n d t h a tD e t e c t iv e H u d s o n s a id t he y w e re l o o ki ng f or“ t w ent y ha r d, ” w hi ch i s st r ee ts l ang f or$20 w ort h of
c r a c kc o c a in e . O f f ic e rC r o w e s a id t h a tA p p e lla n ts a id “ o k a y ” a n d s t u c kh is h a n d o u t a n d th a t D e te c ti v e H u d s o n g a v e h i m a $ 2 0 b i l l . O f f i ce rCr ow e t es t i f i ed t hat A ppe l l ant r an bac k t o t he m an si t t i ng byt he D um ps t er — l at eri den t i f i ed asKenne t h W i l so n— and ha nde d hi m t he $20 bi l l an d t hatW i l so n han ded so m et hi ng t o A ppe l l ant . A ppe l l ant r an bac k t o t he ca ran d d ro p p e d a ro c ko f c ra c kc o c a i n e i n to D e te c ti v e H u d s o n ’sh a n d . O ffice rs H uds on a nd Cr ow e t hen dr oveaw ay and r adi oed an ar r es tt ea m w ai t i ng ne ar by t o m ovei n. O f f i ce rCr ow e s ai d t hatt he ar r es tt ea m ar r es t ed A ppe l l antan d W i l so n , fo u n d o n W i l so n the $ 2 0 tha t D e tec ti v e H u d so n h a d g i v e n A p p e l l a n t, and f ound m or e c r ac k c oca i ne hi dde n on t he D um ps t erdur i ng a s ea r ch i nci den t to th e a rre s ts .3

D et ect i ve H udson al so t est i f i ed. H i s t est i m ony w as ess ent i al l y t he sam e as O f f i cerC r ow e’ s. O f f ic e rJ e f fL u c io t e s t if ie d t h a th e w a so n t h e a r r e s t t e a m o n t h e d a yin que st i on. He sa i d t hatw hen t he ar r es tt ea m r ec ei ved t he “b us t” s i gna l f r om O f f i ce rC r ow e, he an d the othe rm em be r s of t he arr est t ea m i m m e d ia t e ly
m ove d i n a nd a r r es t ed t he onl y t w o pe opl e i n t he ar ea , A ppe l l antan d W i l so n. In a s e a r c h in c id e n tt o t h e a r r e s t s , t h e a r r e s t t e a m f o u n d o n W ils o n t h e $ 2 0 b ill D et ect i ve H udson had gi ven t o A ppel l ant , w hi ch had been photocopi ed ear l i er i n th e d a y to a i d i n l a te r i d e n ti fi c a ti o n . O ffice r L u c i o e x p l a i n e d th a t d ru g d e a l e rs oft en con ce alt hei rs t as h ofdr ugss om ew her e o t hert han on t hei rpe r so nsi n t he hop e t hat pol i ce w i l l not di scover t he st ash i ft hey ar r estt he deal er , so hi s t eam al w ayss ea r che s t he i m m edi at e a r ea w hen m ak i ng a dr ug bus t . A s ea r ch oft he
ar ea i m m edi at el y a ro und W i l son f oun d a baggi e cont ai ni ng a subst ance l at er i den t i f i ed as1. 19 gr am s of cr ac k coc ai ne con ce al ed on t he D um ps t eri n oneof t he sl ee ves us ed by t he l i ft ar m s of a gar bag e t r uck t o l i ft a n d e m p ty t he D um pst er . The bag gi e cont ai ni ng t he 1. 19 gr am s of cocai ne w as adm i t t ed as S t a t e ’s e x h ib it2 o v e r A p p e lla n t ’s o bje c t io n s , a n d it sa d m is s io n f o r m st h e b a s is
o fh iss e c o n d p o in to n a p p e a l. D r . Y i n Zh ang, a f or ensi c sci ent i stw i t h t he FortW ort h cr i m e l ab, t est i f i ed t hatt he su bs t anc e Appel l antde l i ver ed t o D et ec t i ve H uds on w as. 20 gr am s of4

c r a c kc o c a i n e a n d t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e f o u n d o n t h e D u mp s t e rwa s1 . 1 9 g r a ms o f c ra c kc o c a i n e . Th e def ense cal l ed K enneth W i l son. W il s on t est i f i ed t hatt w o pol i ce of f i ce r s dr i vi ng a Br onc o a p p ro a che d hi m an d ot herpe opl e s t and i ng on t he st r eetand asked i ft hey had “20 f orhar d. ” W i l son sai d t hatt he f em al e of f i cer
w a s d ri v i n g the v e h i c l e an d the m a l e o ffi c e r w a s ri d i n g i n the p a ss e n g e r se a t, contr ary t o O f f i cerC r ow e’ s and D et ect i ve H udson ’ s t est i m ony. W i l son t est i f i ed t hatA ppel l antspoke t o t he of f i cer s and t hen w al ked overt o w her e W i l son w as se at ed nextt o t he D um ps t er . W i l so n s t at ed t hatal l oft he dr ugshi dde n on t he D u m p s t e rw e r e h is . A c c o r d in g t o W ils o n , A p p e lla n th a n d e d h im a $ 2 0 b ill,
r e t r ie v e d s o m e t h in g f r o m t h e D u m p s t e r , a n d g a v e it t o t h e o f f ic e r s . W ils o n s a id t hathedi d notgi ve dr ugst o Appel l antan d t ha t h e d i d notkn ow i ft he subst ance A ppel l antgave t o t h e o ff ic e r s w as r eal l y dr ugs. O n cr ossexam i nat i on, W i l son sai d t hatA ppel l ant di d not need hi s per m i ssi on t o access t h e s t a s h in t h e D u m p s t e r . H e a ls o s a id t h a tA p p e lla n tw a sw o r k in g f o rh im th a t d a y . Th e j ur y convi ct ed A ppel l antof del i ver y of a contr ol l ed subst ance ofl ess t han on e gr am . Puni shm entw as t r i ed t o t he bench . The S t at e of f er ed evi dence of t w o pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons. A ppel l ant al so t est i f i ed. H e sai d t hat he w asw or ki ng f orhi m se l f , notW i l so n, on t he dayi n que st i on, an d he5

a d mi t t e d t h a th eg a v e t h e o f f i c e r sd r u g sf o rmo n e ya n d t h a th e wa sa dr ug d e a l e r. T h e tri a l c o u rt a s s e s s e d p u n i s h m e n t a t tw e n tyy e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t. Fact ualSu ff i ci ency I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , A ppe l l antch al l eng est he f ac t uals uffi c i e n cy oft he evi den ce t o su pport hi s con vi ct i on. W hen r evi ew i ng t he f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y of th e ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta c o n v i c ti o n , w e v i e w allthe ev i d e n c e i n a n e u tr a l l i g h t, fa v o ri n g n e i th e r p a rty . W a tso nv. S tate , 2 0 4S . W . 3 d 4 0 4 , 414 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); D ri

ch a s v. S tate , 1 7 5 S .W .3 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). W e t h e n a s k w h e t h e r t h e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n , a lt h o u g h le g a lly
s u f f ic ie n t , is n e v e rt h e le s s s o w e a k t h a t t h e f a c t -f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n isc le a r ly

w r o n g a n d m a n i f e s t l yu n ju s to rw h e t h e rc o n f lic t in g e v id e n c e s o g r e a t ly
o u tw e i g h sth e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e c o n v i c ti o n t h a t th e fa c t-fi n d e r’s d e te rm i n a ti o n i sm a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. Wa tson , 204 S. W . 3d a t414– 15, 417; Jo hn so nv. S tate , 23 S . W . 3d 1, 11 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 00 ) . To r ever se under t he se con d gr ound, w e m us tde t er m i ne, w i t h s om e o bj e c ti ve bas i s i n t he
r ec or d, th a t t he gr ea tw ei ghtan d pr epo nde r anc e o fal l t he evi den ce , t hough l e g a l l ys u fficie n t, c o n tra d i c ts th e v e rd i c t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. A pe r so n com m i t s t he of f ens e ofde l i very ofa con t r ol l ed su bs t anc e i ft he p e rs o n k n o w i n g l yd e l i v e rs a c o n tro l l e d s u b s ta n c e . T EX . H EALT H & S A FE TY C ODE A NN . § 4 8 1 .1 1 2 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).6

A ppel l antar gues t hatt he confl i ctbet w een t he t estim o ny of O f f i cer C r ow e and D et ect i ve H udson on t he one han d and K enneth W i l son on t he ot her
re n d e rsth e e v i d e n c e fa c tu a l l yi n s u fficie n t, a p p a re n tl yb e c a u s e W i l s o n ’s t es t i m ony su gge st s t hatw hat eve rA ppe l l antga ve t o t he o fficer s w asnot cocai ne. W i l son t est i f i ed t hathi s st ash ofdr ugs w as i n t he D um pst er , t hat A p p e l l a n t di d notne ed hi s per m i ss i on t o a cc es s t he st as h, t hatA ppe l l ant
r et r i eved som et hi ng f ro m th e D um pst erand gave i tt o t he of f i cer s, and t hat W ils o n d id n o tk n o w ift h e s u b s t a n c e A p p e lla n tg a v e t o t h e o f f ic e r sw a sre a lly dr ugs. O f f i cerC r ow e and D et ect i ve H udson t est i f i ed t hat A ppel l antdel i ver ed t o t hem a subst ance t hatappear ed t o be cr ack cocai ne, and D r . Zhan g t est i f i ed th a t th e s u b s ta n c e w a s.2 0 g ra m s o f c ra c k c o c a i n e . T o th e e x te n t th a t th e re isa c o n f lic tin t h e t e s t im o n ya st o w h e t h e rt h e s u b s t a n c e w a sc o c a in e , t h is
c o n fl i c t w a sa q u e s ti o n fo r th e j u ryto re s o l v e . See W atson , 2 0 4 S . W . 3d at 41 7. The j ur y r esol ved i tagai nstA ppel l ant . W e cannot say t hatt he evi dence
s u p p o rt in g t h e v e r d ic tw a ss o w e a kt h a tt h e ju ry ’s d e t e r m in a t io n w a sc l e a r ly

w r ong a nd m ani f es t l y un j us t or t hat con f l i ct i ng e vi den ces o gr ea t l y ou t w ei ghs t he evi dence supp ort i ng t he co n v i ct i on t hatt he j ur y’ s det er m i nat i on w as
m a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t; th u s , th e e v i d e n c e i sfa c tu a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt th e j u ry ’s g u i l tyv e rd i c t. See i d. at 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 . W e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t.7 A dm i ssi on of D r ugs Fou nd on D um pst er I n hi s se con d poi nt , A ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he t ri a l co urter r ed by adm i t t i ng i nt o evi dence S t at e’ s exhi bi t 2— t he dr ug st ash pol i ce f oun d hi dden
o n th e D u m p s te r— o v e r h i sre l e v a n c ya n d ru l e4 0 3 o bj e c ti o n s . S ee T EX . R. E VID . 403. The St at e r epl i est hatA ppe l l ant ’ s o bj ec t i onsw er e u nt i m el y be ca us e h e di d notobj ec tt o e ar l i ert es t i m ony abo utt he st as h’ s di sc ove ry. A pa rt y m us tobj ec tt o e vi den ceass oon a s t he b a si s f ort he obj ec t i on b e c o m e sa p p a re n t. T EX . R. E VID . 1 0 3 (a )(1 ); L agron ev. S tate , 942 S. W . 2d 602, 6 1 8 (T e x . C r i m . A p p .), cert. denied, 5 2 2 U .S . 9 1 7 ( 1 9 9 7 ). W h e n a p a rt y obj ect s t o t h e a d mi s s i o n o f p h y s i c a l d r u g e v i d e n c e a ft e r a p o l i c e o f f i cerhas al r eady t est i f i ed abou tf i ndi ng t he dr ugs w i t hou t obj ect i on, nothi ng i s pr esent ed fo r re v i e w . Ma ri

n i v. S tate , 593 S. W . 2d 709, 714 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 1980 ) ( “[ A ] ppe l l antar gue s er r or w as com m i t t ed by t he i nt r oduc t i on ofLSD t abl et s and
m a ri h u a n a d i s c o v e re d i n c o n n e c ti o n w i th h i s o ra l c o n fe s s i o n . A s s u m i n g th e re
w a s s o m e o bj e c ti o n to th i s e v i d e n c e w h e n o ffered , th e re w a s n o o bj e c ti o n to of f i ce rFr az i er ’ s t es t i m ony abo utf i ndi ng t he nar cot i cs . An obj ec t i on m us tbe
ur ged at t he ea r l i es t opport uni t y. Not hi ng i s pr es ent ed f orr evi ew . ” ( C i t at i ons o m i tte d )). B e fo re th e S tate o ffered i ts e x h i b i t 2 , O ffi c e rs C row e a n d L u c io b o th t est i f i ed w i t hou t obj ect i on t hat pol i ce f oun d a st ash ofcr ack cocai ne w hen t hey8

se ar che d t he D um ps t er . Bec aus e Appel l antf ai l ed t o ur ge hi s obj ec t i on a tt he
ea r l i es toppo rt uni t y, i . e. , w hen t he of f i ce r s t es t i f i ed abo utf i ndi ng t he dr ugs , he

w ai ved hi s su bs equ entobj ec t i on t o t he adm i ss i on oft he dr ugst hem se l ves , an d
n o th i n g i s p re s e n te d fo r o u r re v i e w . See i d. W e o ver r ul e Appel l ant ’ s se con d p o i n t. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d b o th o f A p p e l l a n t’sp o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; G A RD N ER and W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Aug us t26, 2008