jury could have found that he o'concear[ed]" the cocaine. Id. And officer
santuariotestifiedthat he saw Hutchinsonplace a ,'couple,,of o,small,,, ,,plastic
bags"in the toilet, which appellantrepeatedlyflushed. And, basedon his training
and experience,Santuarioexplainedthat "people[do not] flush emptyplasticbags
down [a] toilet," but instead,they flush "narcotics." Officer Elkins similarly testified that Hutchinson"discard[ed]items into the toilet," which appellant was flushing.
o"Circumstantial evidenceis as probativeas direct evidencein establishing
the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidencealone can be suflicient to establishguilt."' Merritt v. state,36g s.w.3d 516,525 (Tex.crim. App. 2012)
(quotingHooperv. state,214s.w.3d 9, 13 (Tex.crim. App. 2007)).Basedon the abovetestimony,the jury could havereasonablyinferredthat appellantconcealed
the cocainethat the officers recoveredfrom the toilet. Moreover, it could have
reasonablyinfened that cocaine,other than the cocainerecoveredfrom the single
baggie,was flusheddown the toilet by appellant,and,thus,this other cocainewas
alteredor destroyed.seeRabbv. state,434 s.w.3d 613,617 (Tex. crim. App.
2014) (noting '"a fact finder could reasonablyinfer from the evidencethat the
baggieandpills weredestroyedby their passageinto fa]ppellant'sbody,');Hooper,
214 S.w.3d at l5 (factfinderspermittedto draw reasonable inferencesif supported
by evidence);see,e.g.,Diaz v. state,Nos. l3-13-00067-c& 12-13-0006g-cR,
2014wL 1266350,at *2 & n.3 (Tex.App.-corpus christi Jan.23,2014,nopet.)
(mem.op., not designated for publication)(concludingjury couldreasonablyhave
infened defendantdestroyedcocaineby flushing it down toilet where ,,therewas
cocaine found aroundthe rim of the toilet bowl and in the toilet water, and
fdefendant]hadjust exitedthe bathroonn");Turnerv. State,No. 13-12-00335-CR.
2013 wL 1092194,at *2 (Tex. App.-corpus christi Mar. 14, 2013,no pet.)
(mem. op., not designatedfor publication) (holding factfinder could have reasonably found defendant destroyed cocaine by swallowing based on circumstantialevidence officer saw baggie with o'white or beige rock-like
substance"in defendant'smouth and cocaine commonly packagedin such manner).
Viewing the evidencein the light most favorableto the jury's verdict, we
conclude that the jury could have reasonablyfound that appellant concealed,
altered,or destroyedcocaine.Accordingly,we hold that the evidenceis sufficient
to supporthis convictionof the offenseof tamperingwith physicalevidence.
We overruleappellant'sthird issue.
Possessionof a Controlled Substance
A personcommitsthe offenseof possession of a controlledsubstance if he "knowingly or intentionallypossesses"less than one gram of cocaine. Tpx.
HeaLrH& Sapprv cooE AuN. $$ 481. 102(3XD),481.115(a),(b) (vemon 2010).
To prove that appellantcommittedthis offense,the Statehad to establishbeyonda
reasonable doubt that he exercisedcontrol,management, or careover the cocaine
and knew that it was contraband.Poindexterv. State,l53 S.W.3d 402,405(Tex.
crim. App. 2005);seealso Tsx. pnuat-coDE Ar'rN.g 1.07(a)(39)(vernon supp.
2014). Althoughthe Stateneednot proveexclusivepossession of cocaine,it must
t0 establishthat a defendant'sconnectionwith the cocaineis more than fortuitous.
Evansv. state,202 s.w.3d r5g, 16142 (Tex. crim. App. 2006); wiley v. state,
388 s.w.3d 807, 813 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 20l2,pet. refd). when a defendantis not in exclusivepossession of the placewherecontrabandis found,
the Statemust show additionalaffirmative links betweenthe defendantand'the
contraband.Deshongv. state,625 s,w.2d327,32g (Tex. crim. App. [panelop.] 1981);Kibble v. state,340 s.w.3d 14,1g (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2010, pet. refd). Mere presencein the sameplaceas contrabandis insufficient,by itself, to establishactual care,custody,or control. Evans,202 s.w.3d at 162. But,
presenceor proximity to contraband,when combined with other direct or circumstantialevidence,maybe sufficientto establishpossession.1d.
Texascourtshaverecognizedthat the following non-exclusive,.affirmative
links" may be sufftcient,eithersinglyor in combination,to establisha defenclant's
possession of narcotics: (l) the defendant'spresencewhen a searchis conducted;
(2) whetherthe contrabandwas in plain view; (3) the defendant'sproximity to and
the accessibilifyof the narcotic;(4) whetherthe defendantwasunderthe influence
of narcoticswhen arrested;(5) whetherthe defendantpossessed othercontraband
or narcotics when