Crim. App.
1988). We give deferenceto the responsibilityof the facl finder to fairl'y resolve
conflicts in testimony,to weigh evidence,and to draw reasonableinferencesfrom
the facts. Irilliams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
However, our duty requires us to "ensure that the evidenc,epresentedactually
supportsa conclusionthat the defendantcommitted" the criminal offenseof which
he is accused.Id.
Tamperingwith PhysicalEvidence
A person commits the offense of tampering with physical evidence it
knowing that an offense has been committed,he alters,destroys,or concealsany
record,document,or thing, with intent to impair its verity, legibiltity,or availability
as evidencein any subsequentinvestigationor official proceeilingrelat,edto the offense.Tpx.PpNnlConpAxx. $ 37.09(d)(1) (VernonSupp.2014). lHere,the
underlyingindictmentallegedthat appellant,"knowing that an offenselhadbeen
committed, to wit: POSSESSIoN OF CONTROLL,ED SUBSTANCE,
ALTERIED] AND DESTROYIED] A THING, NAMELY, COCAINE with intent
to impair its VERITY as evidencein any subsequentinvestigationof and of-ficial
proceedingrelatedto the aforesaidoffense."
Officer Santuariotestified that after he enteredthe residence,he followed
appellant and Hutchinson as they ran into the restroorn. Santuariiofbund
Hutchinson"kneelingdown in front of the toilet," "on the,floor," while appellant
repeatedlyflushed the toilet. As appellant continuously'flushed the toilet,
Santuario"saw something leave [Hutchinson's] hands." The "something" "was
small . . . it wasn't just one, it was a couple of things that were srnall. [tt] fl]ooked
like plasticbags." Santuariodid not see"any'thingelse in the toilet" "[o]ther than
the plasticbags" that he saw Hutchinsondiscard.
Officer Santuarioexplainedthat "normally" peoplerun whLenofficers entera
residenceto "discard or destroy narcotics." And, based on his training and
experience,"people [do not] flush empty plastic bags do'wn [a] toilet." Instead,
they flush "narcotics." And, after officers removedappellantanclHutchinsonfrom
the restroom, Santuario"removed [the toilet] from the base [on] the floor" and
found "a small baggiethat had crack cocainein it." Similarly, Officer Elkins testifiedthat he saw appellantand F{utchinsonrun
toward the restroom. Once inside the restroom,Elkins saw Hutchinson "by the
toilet area discarding something inside the toilet." Hurtchinr;on'shands were
"inside the toilet," and he was "discardingitems into the toilet." The only things
that Elkins could seein the toilet were the "items" that Hutchinsonwas discarding.
Elkins also saw appellant's"hands on the ltoilet] lever," and he heard the toilet
being "flushed severaltimes." And Elkins saw Officer Santuario"recove'ra small
bag of . . . crack cocaineout of the bottom of the toilet."
Appellant arguesthat "there is no evidence"that showrsh,3"actually altered
or destroyedthe cocaine that was found in the toilet" because"the cocaine was
insidea plasticbaggie"and "retrievedby the police,"and,thus,"not alteredat all"
or "destroyedin any way." We note, however,that appellanl"'sargumentneglects
to considerthat the jury was not requiredto find that he altere