cocaine.[n fact,the police indicated
that they neversawappellantput any item into the toilet. While the testimony
establishedthat the oflicers saw appellantflush the toilet numeroustimes,
thereis no evidencethat appellanteverpossessed the cocaine.Therefore,the
Courtof Appealsered in findingthatthe evidenceis sufficientto supportthe
verdict.
Also,the evidenceis insufficientto supportthe convictionfor tampering
with physicalevidencesinceappellantdid not alteror destroythe cocainethat
was foundin a baggiein a toilet. The indictmentandjury chargeallegedthat
appellantactuallyalteredor desffoyedthe physicalevidence.The Court of
Appealserredin finding that the evidenceis sufficientto supportthe verdict
under the theory that appellant"concealed"the evidence. However,the
indictmentand jury chargedid not allege that appellant"concealed"the
to thejury wasthat appellant evidence.The only evidencethat waspresented
flushedthe toilet that containedthe baggieof cocainethat wasput thereby the
co-defendant. The physicalevidencethat was seizedby the policewasnever
alteredor destroyed.
Possession - CauseNumber1397496 of a ControlledSubstance
The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard
thrt a reviewing court shouldapply in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis
suffrcientto supporteach elementof a criminal offensethat the Stateis
requiredto prove beyonda reasonable doubt. Broolcsv. State,323 S.W.3d
893,895(Tex.Crim.App.2010);Jacksonv. Virginia,443 U.S.307,99S.Ct.
2781,6l L. Ed. 2d 560,(1979). Underthis standard,evidenceis insufficient
to supporta convictionif consideringall the recordevidencein the light most
favorableto the verdict. no rational factfinder could have found that each
essentialelementof the chargedoffensewas proven beyonda reasonable
doubt.Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. at 319,99 S. Ct. at 2789;In re Winship,
397U.S.358,361,90 S. Ct. 1068,1071,25L. Ed. 2d 368(1970);Lasterv.
State,275S.W.3d512,517(Tex.Crim.App. 2009);Williamsv. State,235
S.W.3d742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).Viewedin a light favorableto the
verdict,the evidenceis insuflicientwhen either:(1) the recordcontainsno
evidence,or merelya "modicum"of evidence,probativeof an elementof the
offense;or (2) the evidenceconclusivelyestablishes a reasonable doubt.Laster
l0 v. State,275S.W.3dat 518.This skndardappliesequallyto both directand
circumstantial evidence. King v. State,895S.w.2d701,703(Tex.Crim.App.
1995);Ervin v. State,331S.W.3d49,55 (Tex.App.-Houston flst Dist.]
2010,pet.refd).
Possession is definedas "actualcare,custody,control,or management."
Tex. Pen.Code $ 1.07(a)(39) (West2011);Tex. Health& SafetyCode g
481.002(38). To proveunlawfulpossession of a controlledsubstance, the State
must establishthat (1) the accusedexercisedcare,control,or management
and(2) knewthe substance overthe contraband, wascontraband. Poindexterv.
State,153 S.W.3d402,405 (Tex. Crim. App.2005). The evidencemust
establishthat the accused'sconnectionwith the substancewas more than
fortnitous.Id. at 405-06.Evidencemustlink the accused to the offensesothat
onereasonably may infer that the accusedknew of the contraband's existence
andexercised conffoloverit. Hyettv. State,58S.W.3d826,830(Tex.App.-
Houston[14thDist.] 2001,,pet.refd). Merepresence at the locationwherethe
controlled substancewas found is insufficient, by itself to establish
possession. Evansv. State,202S.W.3d158,162(Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
In this case,thereis no evidencethat appellantactuallyexercisedcare,
custody,or control over the subjectcocaine.The testimonyestablished that
ChristopherHutchinsondiscardedthe baggieof cocaineinto the toilet. There
is no evidencethat appellantever touchedthe cocaineor the baggiecontaining
the cocaine.In fact, the police indicatedthat they never saw appellantput any
item into the toilet. (RR III 92, I42). While the testimony establishedthat the
officers saw appellantflush the toilet numeroustimes, thereis no evidencethat
appellant ever exercisedcare, control, or managementover the confaband.
Thus, the evidenceis insufficient to supportthe jury's verdict, and this court
should enter a judgment of acquittal on the possessionof a controlled
substanceconviction.
Tamperingwith PhysicalEvidence- CauseNumber1397495
The Jacksonv. Virginia legal-sufficiencystandardis the only standard
that a reviewingcourt shouldapply in determiningwhetherthe evidenceis
sufficientto supporteach elementof a criminal offensethat the Stateis
requiredto provebeyonda reasonable doubt. Brooksv. State,323S.W.3d
893,895(Tex.Crim.App. 2010);Jacksonv. Virginia,443U.S.307,99 S.Ct.
2781,6I L. Ed. 2d 560,(1979). Underthis standard,evidenceis insufficient
to supporta convictionif consideringall the recordevidencein the light most
favorableto the verdict. no rational factfinder could have found that each
essentialelementof the