Court Opinion

ID: 9759230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:09:35.036498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:00.375058
License: Public Domain

OPINION
BURGESS, Justice.
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated possession of a controlled substance. The judge sentenced appellant to twenty-five years in the Texas Department of Corrections and imposed a fine of $10,000. Appellant brings three grounds of error, each claiming the trial court erred in overruling a motion for instructed verdict.
Appellant was indicted for possession of methamphetamine of more than twenty-eight grams but less than four hundred grams. There are additional paragraphs alleging two prior convictions. The indictment, in pertinent part, stated:
*779RICHARD A. CRUSE ... did ... intentionally and knowingly possess a controlled substance, namely METHAMPHETAMINE of more than twenty-eight grams but less than four hundred grams.
On September 10, 1984, agents of the Texas Department of Public Safety executed a search warrant on a location in Hardin County, Texas. Agent Palmer arrested appellant at the door of a mobile home. He testified that both the mobile home and appellant smelled strongly of methamphetamine. The agents discovered a “laboratory area” in the mobile home. They also found chemical ingredients for making liquid methamphetamine as well as the finished product on countertops in plain view.
We initially consider the grounds of error challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to show appellant’s knowledge of and exercise of care, management and control over the controlled substance.
The state must prove that appellant exercised actual care, control and management over the contraband and that he knew it was contraband. Herrera v. State, 561 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Further, where as in this case, appellant is not in exclusive control of the premises because others are present and arrested, there must be additional facts and circumstances linking appellant specifically to the controlled substance to prove he had the requisite knowledge and control. Harrison v. State, 555 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). We find those additional facts and circumstances in this case.
Appellant was arrested leaving the laboratory area of the mobile home. The smell of the methamphetamine was within the entire mobile home. Appellant smelled of the methamphetamine. The contraband was in plain view and easily accessible to appellant. The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), is sufficient to sustain the verdict. See Pollan v. State, 612 S.W.2d 594 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).
Appellant’s remaining ground of error alleges an instructed verdict should have been granted because the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the methamphetamine weighed more than twenty-eight grams. The testimony in this regard came from a Department of Public Safety chemist:
Q In the form that it’s in in [sic] Exhibit 4, it cannot be used; is that correct?
A There is methamphetamine in there, sir. I don’t know. Some people may use it in that form. I don’t have no way of knowing.
Q And did you run any tests on what else may be included in Exhibit 4?
A No, sir, I was just looking for controlled substances.
Q And did you take an aggregate weight of Exhibit No. 4?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q And what did you come up with?
A Forty-two point seventeen grams.
Q Forty-two point seventeen grams would include what methamphetamine is in there plus any other substances; is that correct?
A Yes, sir, that’s correct.
Q And you have no idea of knowing how much methamphetamine was in there and how much of the other substances is in there; is that correct?
A That’s right, sir. I only know that there’s a quantity of methamphetamine in there.
[[Image here]]
Q Mr. Haby, is it your testimony that you ran a test on Exhibit No. 4; is that correct?
A Yes, sir, that’s correct.
Q In it contains, according to your test, methamphetamine; is that right?
A Yes, sir, it does.
Q But you’re not able to tell us what quantity of methamphetamine is in that particular exhibit; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q When you say that — when he asked you what quantity is there, you say, ‘42.-*78017 grams,’ that’s not entirely correct; is that true?
A That’s the aggregate weight.
Q That’s the aggregate weight of all of the substances that’s in that cup; is that correct?
A Yes, sir, that’s correct.
Q And it contains other substances than methamphetamine; is that correct?
A Sir, it contains its diluents and contaminants, yes, sir.
TEX.REV. CIV.STATANN art, 4476-15, sec. 4-04 (Vernon Supp.1986) (known as the Texas Controlled Substances Act), makes it unlawful to possess methamphetamine. If the amount of the controlled substance possessed is, by aggregate weight, including any adulterants or dilutants, 28 grams or more, then under sec. 4-04(c), that offense is classified as an aggravated. Further, under sec. 4.04(d)(1), that offense is punishable for life or any number of years not more than 99 or less than five and a fine not to exceed $50,000.
Here, the indictment alleges the methamphetamine to be of more than 28 grams. It does not use the phrase “including its adulterants and dilutants”.1 The state is bound by the allegations in its indictment and must prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Doyle v. State, 661 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). This the state did not do. The instructed verdict should have been granted on this point and the case submitted to the jury on the lesser included offense of possession of methamphetamine of less than 28 grams. The case is reversed and remanded for a retrial on the lesser included offense.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

. 7 M. McCormick & T. Blackwell, TEXAS CRIMINAL FORMS AND TRIAL MANUAL sec. 23.14 (Texas Practice 9th ed. 1985), suggests the inclusion of the phrase, "including any adulterants and dilutants".