were working together to flush the items dou'n the toilet. When
Officer Elkins commandedHutchinsonto oostop" and "put his handsaway from the
Officer Santuarioexplainedthat a "flash bang""is a distractiondevice"t;hatmakes a loudgunshot-likesound,flasheslight,andreleases minimalsmoke. toilet," he did not comply. Elkins, therefore,"reached in and basicall'yyanked
fHutchinson] away from the toilet." After the officers relno'vedappellant and
Hutchinsonfrom the restroom,they "handcuffedand . . . escorted[them] out of the
residence."
Officer Santuariothen took "a closer look at th[e] toilet" and "removed it
from the base [on] the floor." Inside the toilet, he found "a small baggie,that had
crack cocaine in it." HPD officers also searchedthe remainder:of the residence,
appellant,and Hutchinson,and they recovered$2,103 in casrh,marijuanaand
related paraphernalia,a "small digital scale," a beaker, a revolver, and a "baby
bottle with what appearedto be codeineinsideof it."
Officer Elkins testifiedthat he assistedwith the executionof the "no knock"
searchwarrant at the residence. He breachedthe residence'sfront door with a
"[b]attering device," and Officer Delacerta deployed the "flesh bang." After
Elkins followed Officer Santuariointo the residence,Santuarioy'elled,"[r]unners,"
to alert the other officers that "individuals inside the residence[were] nunning."
Generally,peoplerun in situationssuch as this to "hide," "get rid.of sometihing,"or
to "get away from officers." Elkins saw appellantand Hutctrinslonrun toward the
restroom,and he and Santuariopursued.
Once inside the restroom,Officer Elkins saw appellanl."cliscard"a."[s]ilver
automatic pistol" onto the floor and Hutchinson "by the toil,et area discarding somethinginside the toilet." Hutchinsonhad his hands "iLnsidethe toilet," and it
looked like he was "[d]iscarding items into the toilet." After E,lkinscornmanded
Hutchinsonto o'showhis hands" and "get down on the ground," he did not comply.
Although his focus was on Hutchison,Elkins saw appellant''reachingtoward the
lever of the toilet." "observed his hands on the lever." and cor"rldhear the toilet
flushing. According to Elkins, the toilet "had been llushed several times."
Eventually,Elkins "forcefully. . .pull[ed] [Hutchinson]off the toilet" and took
him into custody. In a subsequentsearch of the restroom.,Elkins savyOfficer
Santuario"recover a small bag of what appearfed]to be crack r:ocainecut of the
bottom of the toilet." HPD oft-rcersalso recovered mariiiuerna.codeine" and
"anotherpistol" from the residence.
Mona Colcatestifiedthat she.as a criminalistwith the controlledsubstances
sectionof the HPD Crime Laboratory,"receive[s]and anallyze[s]evidence"to "test
it for the presenceof controlled substances." She anerlyzedthe "small bag"
recoveredfrom the toilet and found that it contained0.83 eramsof cocaine.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
ln his third issue,appellantarguesthat the evidenceis i.nsuLfficient to support
his conviction for tampering with physical evidencebecausehe did not "actually
alterf] or destroy[] the cocaine that was found in the toilet." In his first issue,
appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for possessionof a controlled substancebecause"there is no evidence that [he]
actuallyexercisedcare,custody,or control over the subjectcocaine."
We review the legal sufficiency of the evidenceby conr;ideringall of the
evidence"in the light most favorableto the prosecution"to
"rational trier of fact could have found the essentialelementsof the crime beyonda
reasonable doubt." Jacksonv. Virginia.443 U.S. 307,319,99 S. Ct. 2781,2789
(1979). Our role is that of a due processsafeguard,ensuringonl.ythe rationalityof
the trier of fact's finding of the essential elements of the offense treyond a
reasonabledoubt. See Moreno v. State,755 S.W.2d 866, 857 (Tex.