NO. 07-06 -026 3-CR NO. 07-06 -026 4-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 17 , 200 7

_________

_________

_________

_______ RI CKYLY NN M AR SH , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 22 3 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF G RAY COUN T Y; RD NOS. 69 19 & 6 920 ; HON. LEE W AT ERS, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. Ri cky Ly nn M arsh (a ppel lan t) appeal s h is co nv ic ti ons for pos ses si ng a c ontro lled subs tanc e w it h i ntentto del iv er and poss ess ing cer

tai n chemi cal s ( anhy drous ammonia)
w it h i ntent to manufacture cont ro ll ed subs tanc es. Vi a three i ss ues, he c ontends that1) the tr ial c o u rt e rre d by

fail ing to suppress ev ide nce that w as obtai ned unl awfully and 2)2

§481. 1 2 4 o f

the Tex as Hea lt h and Safety C ode v iol ates hi s c onst it uti onal r ig hts to due proc es s a nd a fai r

t r i al

. W e affi r m. Back ground On Ap ril 4, 20 04, a search warrantwas issue d aut horizi ng th e search of app ellant ’s residen ce. T he warrantw as foun ded upo n the af f idavit of Of f icer Vincen t Marasco (M arasc o)

. In hi s a ff ida v it , M arasc o s tat e d tha t 1) appel lan t’ s p re mis es cont ain ed methampheta mine and the c omponents of methampheta mine, i.e. anhy drous ammonia, eth er and Sud afed, 2) app ellant w as a known me tha mp het am ine user, 3) Pam pa p o li ce of f icer Jarrett Parson s smelled anh y drou s amm onia and ethe r coming f ro m app ellant ’s home on Ma rc h 26, 2004, and Ma rc h 28, 2004, 4) D eputy Sc ott Lar ue ( Lar ue) obs er v ed Michael Craig Knu tson (Knutso n), a kno w n me th a m p h eta min e use r leav e ap pellan t’s premis es on Apri l 4, 2004, 5) due to K nuts on’ s e rrati c d ri v ing as he l eft appel lan t’ s h ome, Lar ue beg an to foll ow

hi m, 6) Knut son cont inu ed to dr iv e errati cal ly , w hic h c onduc t l ed Lar ue to bel iev e Knutson w as attempt ing to ev ade him, 7) Lar ue obser v ed Knutson throw a Peps i bottl e outof the c ar w h ich r e sulted in Lar ue s toppi ng and ar re sti ng Knut son for li tter ing , 8) Lar ue s tated thathe h ad l ostKnut son w hil e foll ow ing him o n A tchis on St re et and l ater retur ned t o the st re et on ly to find metha mphetami ne on the g ro und, 9) Knut son lat er admitted to ow nin g the methampheta mine and hav ing obta ine d i t from appel lan t, and 10) Kn utso n also disclose d t h a ta p p e lla nt no t only had mo re me tha mp het am ine athis re si dence but als o w as manufactur ing i t t here. Base d on Marasc o’s aff ida v it , t he tr ial co urt i ss ued t he w ar ra nt i n q uest ion

. And, upon i ts ex ecut ion both methampheta mine and anhy drous ammonia w ere dis cov ered at3

the l ocat ion se ar ched. Thi s re sul ted i n appel lan t’ s i ndi ctmentfor t he c ri mes of w hic h he wa s la t e r fo u n d gu il t y b y a ju ry. Iss ue One - FalseStatements in the Aff idav it Supporting Sea rch Warrant In hi s first is sue, appel lan t attac ks the search w ar ra nt an d the af fidav itin suppor

t of itby co ntendi ng thatv ar iou s s tatement s i n the aff ida v it w ere false. This g ro und w as not ass erted b elo w, h o w ev er . Rat her , app ell ant t houg ht t he w ar ra nt de fecti v e s ole ly on t he basis th at i to m itted informa tion regarding Knu tson ’s reliability and trustw orthin ess. Con seq uentl y , t he i ss ue before us w as not p re ser v ed, i s w aiv ed, a nd i s o verru le d. See Br oxton v . St ate , 909 S.W .2d 912, 918 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995) ( hol din g thatthe g ro unds for object ion raised on ap pea l must co mp ort w ith tho se raised at trial, othe rw ise the y are w aived). Iss ue Two - Affidavit Fails to Show Informant Reliableand Trustworthy Next, appel lan t c ontends thatLar ue’ s a ff ida v itw as fatall y defecti v e becau se itfail ed to “ es ta bl i s h th e c r ed i bi l i ty of [K nu ts on ] ne c es s ar y to es ta bl i s h prob ab l e c au s e. ” W e dis ag re e and ov er ru le the i ss ue. It is bey ond dis pute that a sear ch w ar ra nt maynot be i ss ued unl ess su ff ic ien t facts are present ed to a mag is trate w hic h per mit him to c oncl u d e t h a t probabl e c ause ex is ts suppo rt ing the w ar ra nt' s i ss uance . T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 18.0 1 (b ) ( Ver non 2005) ; Tay

lor v. Sta te , 54 S.W .3d 2 1, 24 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2001, no pet .)

. F urther more, thes e facts mustnot onl y be cont ain ed in a "sw or n aff ida v it " ac company ing the appl ic ati on for th e w ar ra nt bu t al so il lu st ra te t hat 1 ) a s peci fic o ff ense w as commi tted, 2) the spec ific all y

des cr ibe d proper

ty or i tems to be so ug ht an d s eiz ed c onst it ute e v ide nce of that4

off ense or

ev ide nce that a par

ti cul ar person commi tted the offense, and 3) the proper ty or it ems i n q uest ion are loc ated at or on the p arti cul ar person, pl ace or

thi ng to be s earched. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 18.01( c) ; Tay

lor v. Sta te , 54 S.W .3d at 24. W hether the facts menti oned i n an aff ida v itare adeq uate to es tabl is h probabl e c ause depends on t he tot a lit y o f

the ci rc umstan ces . Ram os v. State , 93 4 S. W .2 d 35 8, 3 62
- 63 ( Tex

. C r i m. App.19 96) ; Tay

lor v. Sta te , 54 S.W .3d a t 24. The y d o s o wh e n theyper mit one t o re asona bly

co ncl ude t hat t he obj ectof the s earch is probabl y on the premis es. Id

. In ot her
w ords, th e ma gistrate musthave before him suf f icient fa c t s u p on which to reason ably conc lud e tha t "t here i s a f a ir probabi li ty thatco ntraband o r ev ide nce of a cr ime w il l be found in a par

ti cul ar pl ace. " Il

li noi s v . G ates , 462 U. S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct . 231 7, 23 32, 7 6 L.Ed. 2d 527 (1 983) ; Tay lor v. Sta te , 54 S.W .3d a t 24. An d, i t is our duty to ins ure that the mag is trate h a d a "' subs tanti al basi s' " for s o c oncl udi ng . Il li noi s v . G ates , 462 U .S. at 238- 39, 1 03 S. Ct . at2332, 76 L .Ed. 2d 527; Tay lor v. Sta te , 54 S.W .3d at 24. Fi nally, i n re achi ng hi s d eci si on, t he mag is trate may draw reason abl e i nferenc e s f ro m facts and ci rc umstan ces al leg ed i n the aff ida v it

. Ram os v. State , 934 S.W .2d a t 363 ; Tay lor v. Sta te , 54 S. W .3d a t 24. W het her or notinforma tion f rom a n un nam ed informa nt alo ne m ay esta blish prob able cause , w e ha v e mo re than tha th e re . First, ap pellan t w as a kno w n drug user. Seco nd, K nuts on inc ulp ated hims elf w hen admi tti ng thatthe methampheta mine found w as his and that he boug ht i t from appel lan t. See Montgom er y v . St ate , No. 02-0 3-42 5-CR, 2005 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 3467 (Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth M ay 5, 2005, pet. re f’d) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( sta ti ng thata s tatementag ain st penal i nteresti s i nhe re ntl y credi ble and5

ma y be suf f icient, i n a n d o f

i t s elf , to esta blish prob able cause ); C or neal ius v. Sta te , 870 S.W .2d 1 69, 1 72 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [14 Dist.] 1994 ) a f f ’d , 90 0 S. W .2 d 73 1 ( Tex

. C r i m. th App. 1995) ( sta ti ng the same)

. Third, Knuts on w as act ual ly se en by the pol ic e l eav ing appel lan t ’ s h o u s e , a n d h e e x h i b i t e d a c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f g u i l ti n a t t e mp t i n g t o ev ade apprehens ion as he d ro v e f ro m that house

. Four th, the s mell of anhy drous ammonia and eth er (precursors of me tha mp het am ine) had bee n det ecte d em ana ting f rom a p p ellant ’s home day s e ar li er . These i ndi ci a w ere enoug h to ind ependent ly v er ify the re li abi li ty and bol ste r the s ubst ance of Knuts on’ s i nformati on. See A ber cr om biev. Sta te, 528 S. W .2d 578, 583- 85 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1974) (h old ing that the abs ence of an al leg ati on of pr ior
re li abi li ty i s n ot ips o fac toa fatal defect in the a ff ida v itand other factors may

be c onsi dered in deter mini ng reli abi li ty i ncl udi ng a s tatem ent a g ain st penal i nterest ). Therefore, the cont ents of the a ff ida v itsu ff ic ed to show probabl e caus e tha t meth amphetami ne w oul d be foun d on app ellant ’s premise s.

Issu e T hr ee - B ur deno f Pro of

f or Po ssessio n of

Chem icals Vi a h is f ina l is sue, appel lan t at tac ks hi s c onv ic ti on for poss ess ing anhy drous ammonia. The c onv ic ti on w as all eg edl y uncon sti tuti onal becau se §481.12 4 of the Tex as Hea lt h and Safety

C ode c re ated a presu mpti on fav or ing the Stat e and les seni ng i ts burden of proof. W e di sag re e and ov er ru le the i ss ue. Ma ndator

y presumpt ion s a re a c ause of conc er n and m a y improper ly l ess en th e Sta te’s bu rden of

proof byeithe r rem oving the pre sum ed e lem entf rom th e case entirely or i mpermi ss ibl y

sh ifti ng the burden t o the defendant. See, e.g., Sands tr omv. Montana , 442 U .S. 510, 523- 24, 9 9 S. Ct . 245 0, 61 L.E d.2d 39 ( 1979) ( findi ng a j ur y i nst ru cti on6

v iol ated due proces s w hen i t inc lud ed a pre sumpti on th at l ess ened t he St ate' s b urden t o prov e the es sent ial ele ments of t he cas e bey ond a reason abl e doubt ). M oreov er , phrases suc h as "are presumed" or "the law presumes " ev inc e mandator y presumpt ion s. Webber
v. State, 29 S. W .3d 226 , 230 -31 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [14 Dist.] 2000 , pet . ref ’d). th By co ntrast , per mis si v e presumpt ions are g enerall y co nst it uti onal

. See W illis v. State , 790 S.W .2d 307, 31 0 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) ( en banc ). They al low , butdo n ot re q uire, t he j ur

y to infer an e lementof the o ff ense from predi cat e facts est abl is hed by the Stat e. Id. M ore i mport antl y , t o transfor m a mandat or y presumpt ion i nto a permis si v e one so itcan pass cons ti tuti onal m ust er , the leg is lat ure enacted §2.05 of Tex as Penal C ode. I d

. ;G a r r e tt v . S ta te, 1 5 9 S .W .3d 7 17, 7 20 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 05, n o pet .)

. That prov is ion obl ig ates the tr ial co urt t o i ncl ude t he foll ow ing i n i ts jur y i nst ru cti on: if the existence of

t he presu me d fact is su bm itted t o the ju ry , the co urt shall charge t he j ur

y , i n ter ms of the presumpt ion and the s peci fic e lementto w hich it app lies, as follows: (A ) that th e f act s g iv ing r is e to the p re sumpti on mus t be prov en bey ond a re asona ble doubt ; (B) that if

such facts are p rov en b eyond a reaso nab le dou bt th e jury mayfind t hat t he el ement of the offense soug ht to be presumed ex is ts, but iti s n ot bo und t o s o find; (C ) that ev en thoug h the j ur y may find t he ex is tenc e of suc h el ement, the s tate must prov e bey ond a re asona ble doubt each of t he other el ements of the offense ch arg ed; and (D ) if the ju ry

has a re asona ble doubt as to the e x is tenc e of a fact or facts giv ing r ise to the presum ption , the presum ption f ails a nd the ju ry shall not c onsi der

the presumpt ion for a ny pur pose. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §2. 05(a )(2) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 06).7

Next, the p re sumpti on i nv olv ed here ar is es from §481. 124( c) (2 ) of the H eal th an d Safety C ode. Ac cordin g to that prov is ion , . . . a subst ance is presu me d to be anh y drou s am mo nia i f the sub stan ce is in a c ontai ner

or recept acl e tha t i s: ( 1 ) d e sig ned and manufactured to law fully hol d or

transpo rtanhy drous ammonia; or ( 2) not desi g ned and ma nuf actu red to lawfu lly hold or tran sport an hydrous am m o n ia i f : (A) a proper ly admi nis tered fiel d tes t of the substanc e us ing a t est ing dev ic e or in s t ru m e n t d e s ig n e d a n d m a n u fa c t u re d fo r th a t p u rp o s e p ro d u c e s a p o s it ive re sul t for anhy drous ammonia; or (B ) a lab orator y tes t of a w ater sol uti on of the s ubst ance produce s a pos it iv e resul t for ammonia. T EX . H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . §48 1.1 24(c)(2) (Verno n Sup p. 2006 ). And , this w as told to t he j ur y . Y et, the sta tutor

y lan g uag e of §2.05( a) (2 ) w as als o i ncl uded i n the i nst ru cti on. Gi v en th at cir cu m sta nce, w e c annot say the ins tr uct ion cross ed i nto t he z one of
u n c o n s t it u t io n a li t y. Hav ing ov er ru led al l is sues , w e aff ir m both jud g ments of the tr ial co urt.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.