Court Opinion

ID: 9858481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:25:28.512049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:37.981380
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
Would that every issue this Court exercised its discretion to review were as simple and straightforward as the plurality believes this one to be! The reality is, of course, that issues that simple are not worth this Court’s time and effort, since, presumably, the various courts of appeals can be trusted to resolve them without our interference. We granted discretionary review in this cause, however, precisely because the parties raise a difficult and important issue, likely to recur, “which has not been, but should be, settled by the Court of Criminal Appeals.” Tex.R.App.Pro., Rule 200(c)(2). We fail to honor our duty to the jurisprudence of the State when we treat issues momentous enough to attract our attention in the first place with such short shrift. We do a disservice to the bench and bar, and show nothing short of disrespect for the parties themselves, when we ignore the complexity of hard issues, squarely presented and well briefed, such as that raised here.
Ultimately I agree with the Court’s disposition today. But I am far less certain than the plurality that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that various substances are the same simply because they “appear to be” so, and are “identically packaged.” Op. at 722. To say, moreover, that appellant could have tested all of the substance to prove it was not all the same smacks of unconstitutional burden shifting. Id. I write to explain why on the facts of this case I reach the same conclusion as the plurality despite these concerns.

I.

Appellant was arrested in what was described at trial as a “crack house” or “trap house.” The apartment contained only one piece of furniture, a dresser, which was located in the living room next to the front door. A police witness testified that the lack of the normal accoutrements of residence suggested to him, in his experience as an undercover narcotics investigator, that drugs were sold from the apartment. And indeed, a confidential informant had purchased a substance at that location that police had “verified” to be cocaine. In executing the search warrant, officers discovered the door to the apartment was barricaded with a wood block, another characteristic of a “trap house.” On the top of the dresser officers found fifty-four small baggies, each containing several “rocks” of what they suspected was crack cocaine, and a loaded pistol. A field test proved positive for cocaine, although one of the officers conceded that such “spot” tests are not conclusive.
*723The suspected crack cocaine was forwarded to the forensic lab, where it was examined by forensic analyst Andrea Bunn. On her direct examination Bunn testified:
“Q. Okay. Could you briefly describe what type of analysis did you perform?
A. There were three tests that were performed on the contents of [the fifty-four baggies], one: a color test or a spot test. It’s a presumptive test used to determine what might be present in the substance. A second test is a gas chromatograph mass spectrometry test, which specifically identifies what chemical is present, and the third test, a gas chromatograph test, which helps in the quantitating, or telling how much of a chemical is present.
Q. Ma’am, the last two tests that you mentioned, are these done with special scientific equipment?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what did your analysis show, ma’am?
A. My analysis showed that there was cocaine present in the zip lock plastic bags.
* * * * ⅜ ⅜
Q. Okay. Mrs. Bunn, could you briefly describe — your analysis showed that it was cocaine. How much — could you describe how much cocaine or what percentage of cocaine you found?
A. In one of the zip lock plastic baggies that I analyzed, where three tests were performed, the three that I mentioned, the spot test, the gas chromatograph, mass spectrometry test, and the gas chromato-graph test, in that zip lock plastic bag, the amount of cocaine found was eight hundred and thirty seven milligrams, ninety-nine percent. And the total weight of the material, itself, was eight hundred and thirty-nine milligrams.
On two other bags, I did two analyses, the spot test and the gas chromatograph test. On one of the bags, the amount of cocaine found was six hundred and sixty-four milligrams, ninety-nine percent, and the total weight of that material was six hundred and seventy-one milligrams. On the second bag, the amount of seven hundred and twenty-five milligrams, ninety-nine percent, and the total weight of the material was seven hundred twenty-five milligrams. On two additional bags, I did just a spot test on the two, and that indicated to me that there was cocaine present in comparison with the others that — the zip lock plastic bags that I had analyzed. The total weight of the hard off-white material in all fifty-four zip lock plastic bags was thirty-five point two grams.
Q. Ma’am, is thirty-five point two grams an amount greater than twenty-eight grams but less than two hundred grams?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. Mrs. Bunn, based on your analysis that you conducted, your scientific analysis, your training, your experience in doing this type of work, did you have or did you form an opinion about the remainder of the bags that you did not actually test? Did you form an opinion as to what those substances were?
[Objection overruled]
A. In my opinion, from my analysis of the other five bags, the fact that all the material in the rest of the bags appeared to be the same, my opinion there is cocaine present.”
On cross-examination the following colloquy occurred:
“Q. What was the total amount, what was the total weight of the substance that you identified as cocaine, that you scientifically tested?
⅜ * ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜
A. ... Two point two three seven grams.
Q. Okay. So that is less than twenty-eight grams, is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So the remaining thirty, approximately thirty-three grams, you did not test, is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. So that may be cocaine, may not be cocaine, is that correct?
A. It’s possible, yes.
Q. It’s possible that it is cocaine, and it’s possible it’s not cocaine?
*724A. Correct.
sjc ‡ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜: ⅜
Q. Okay. Whose decision is it to analyze all of a substance that is submitted to the institute or just to do a portion of it?
A. As to the deciding what to do, it’s decided, basically, by funding. Because of the cost of doing the analysis, it’s decided that we can’t afford to do all of them.
Q. It’s a money consideration?
A. Correct.
[[Image here]]
Q. Okay. If — the basis of your opinion as to the remainder of the substance that was submitted to you is based on the fact that you looked at it; it appeared to be the same substance that you analyzed, is that correct?
A. Correct.
⅝ ⅜ * ¾{ ⅜ ⅜
Q. Okay. All came from the same source, so you are assuming that the one was cocaine and the other looks like it, so it’s going to be cocaine too?
A. Right. I’m saying that of the fifty-four, I did five of them, and those five was [sic] cocaine, and from — in my opinion, it’s cocaine, the rest of it.
Q. Right, there is no — other than that, there is no scientific basis to your opinion?
A, There is a scientific basis in the sense of statistics that it is cocaine.”
Back on re-direct examination, Bunn continued:
“Q. First of all, if a Defendant, a person charged with a crime, wants to have all the drugs fully analyzed, you would do so at their request, is that not correct?
A. Correct.
******
Q. Now, ma’am, you stated earlier that, you know, your scientific opinion, you believed the other materials, the other ones that you did not test, to be cocaine also?
A. Yes.
Q. In forming that opinion, ma’am, besides just the fact that you had tested the other five, in forming that opinion, did you take into account the consistency of the other — other—what you believed to be the other cocaine? Did you take into account the size, the appearance, the whole package?
A. Yes, I did in looking at the fact that they were all packaged the same way in the same size zip lock plastic bags, coloring of the material was the same; the texture of the material was all hard off-white material. In looking at all those things, I formed the opinion that they were all cocaine.”
For all practical purposes, this was Bunn’s whole testimony.
A three judge panel of the Dallas Court of Appeals held the foregoing evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant possessed cocaine in an aggravated amount, that is, an amount more than 28 but less than 200 grams. V.T.C.A. Health & Safety Code § 481.112(e) and (d)(1). See Gabriel v. State, 842 S.W.2d 328, at 332-33 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 1992). Justice Kaplan dissented. Id., at 333-35. Apparently finding no Texas precedents, both the majority and the dissenter below cite cases from Illinois and Florida. The gist of the disagreement seems to be what significance to give to the fact that the substance in the present case was found in fifty-four separate receptacles. The majority held, in effect, that because the substance was apparently homogeneous, the State could establish that a random sample was cocaine, and that by extrapolation from that sample, the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the whole was what the sample proved to be. Justice Kaplan disagreed, believing that the better reasoned caselaw from those jurisdictions that have addressed the question allow extrapolation from random sampling only where a homogeneous substance is found in a single receptacle.
In his petition for discretionary review, appellant argues that similarity in appearance and texture are not enough to justify jury extrapolation from a sample to the whole with the requisite degree of confidence, viz: beyond a reasonable doubt. We granted his petition to address this question. Rule 200(c)(2), supra. We should at least *725examine the cases from other jurisdictions that the court of appeals invoked, as well as other cases recently decided that the parties call to our attention.

II.

It has been held that random sampling of an apparently homogeneous substance wholly contained within a single receptacle is sufficient to prove that the whole is contraband. See People v. Ohley, 15 Ill.App.3d 125, 303 N.E.2d 761 (1973) (89 tablets delivered to officer at same time; twelve field-test positive for LSD, and are shown to be homogeneous; then six more prove conclusively to be LSD; held admissible to show all 89 tablets are LSD); People v. Yosell, 53 Ill. App.3d 289, 11 Ill.Dec. 184, 368 N.E.2d 735 (1977) (evidence sufficient to prove requisite amount, where one tablet from each of ten baggies found in single paper bag tested conclusively for barbituric acid); People v. Kaludis, 146 Ill.App.3d 888, 100 Ill.Dec. 382, 497 N.E.2d 360 (1986) (conclusive test on random sample of pills found in single bag sufficient to prove requisite amount of me-thaqualone, where pills were all same size, shape, color and density, and each marked “Lemmon 714”).
Where suspected contraband is found in separate receptacles, however, courts have generally required that at least a sample from each receptacle be tested before a jury can say with a level of confidence beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the substance, or at least enough of it to establish the jurisdictional amount, contains that alleged contraband. See People v. Yosell, supra; People v. Games, 94 Ill.App.3d 130, 49 Ill.Dec. 666, 418 N.E.2d 520 (1981) (chemist’s testimony that one of two bags proved to be cannabis, and that both bags together weighed requisite amount, not sufficient to establish requisite amount was cannabis); People v. Ayala, 96 Ill.App.3d 880, 52 Ill.Dec. 446, 422 N.E.2d 127 (1981) (conclusive test of sample of substance taken from only one of two bags, both of which had field-tested positive for heroin, presents inference sufficient to establish proof by a preponderance of evidence that both bags contained heroin; but inference insufficient as a matter of law to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt); People v. Hill, 169 Ill.App.3d 901, 120 Ill.Dec. 574, 524 N.E.2d 604, at 611 (1988) (“Where separate bags or containers of suspected drugs are seized, a sample from each bag or container must be conclusively tested to prove that it contains a controlled substance [here, powder cocaine].”); Ross v. State, 528 So.2d 1237 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1988) (two of 92 plastic packets all found in single paper bag test conclusively for powder cocaine; even though contents of all 92 packets look alike, evidence held insufficient to establish requisite amount); Campbell v. State, 563 So.2d 202 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1990) (requisite amount to show delivery offense not established “where chemist only tested one or two heroin capsules found in a change purse.”); People v. Maiden, 210 Ill.App.3d 390, 155 Ill.Dec. 120, 569 N.E.2d 120 (1991) (evidence insufficient to prove requisite amount where all three bottles of suspected POP field-test positive, but only one subjected to test that conclusively establishes POP); People v. Young, 220 Ill.App.3d 488, 163 Ill.Dec. 290, 581 N.E.2d 241 (1991) (even though three baggies and numerous paper packets all found in one paper bag, evidence insufficient to show requisite amount where only one baggie and one packet tested and shown to be powder cocaine); but see State v. Riley, 587 So.2d 130 (La.App. 2 Cir.1991) (testing of only six of 33 baggies of white powder substance all found in trash can enough to show all 33 are cocaine).
Nevertheless, the courts that have addressed the specific question have held that only a random sample of crack cocaine need be tested to establish the requisite amount, whether found in one receptacle or in individual packets. Bond v. State, 538 So.2d 499 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1989) (testing of only one of 139 small baggies sufficient to show all are “rock” cocaine, because, unlike powder cocaine, which resembles many other substances, “rock” cocaine is homogeneous, like similar-looking pills); State v. Meeks, 552 So.2d 328 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1989) (same as Bond); State v. Ballom, 562 So.2d 1073 (La. App. 4 Cir.1990) (testing of four of 1095 baggies of “rocks” of suspected cocaine all found in single paper bag sufficient to show all are cocaine, since “[t]here is no evidence *726to indicate that the other packages were not fungible.”); In re Lemons, 77 Ohio App.3d 691, 603 N.E.2d 315 (1991) (random testing of “several” rocks “was substantial evidence from which the trial court could properly conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that all thirty-one rocks contained cocaine.”); State v. Gibson, 856 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App.E.D.1993) (only one of numerous “rocks” found in cup tested and found to contain a cocaine base; but in view of testimony from a “criminalist” that individual “rocks” of crack cocaine are usually all cut from one “batch,” evidence held sufficient to show all “rocks” are cocaine).
It appears from these cases that by and large it is sufficient to extrapolate from a random sample of an apparently homogeneous substance found in a single receptacle that the whole of the substance is the same. In the case of contraband pills, as long as they share size, weight, shape and scoring characteristics, they may all be assumed to be the same as a random sample, whether found in the same receptacle or in different receptacles recovered from the same general location. Under these circumstances it is generally found that the strength of the inference that the whole of the substance, or a requisite part, is the same as the sample is sufficient to support a jury conclusion to a level of confidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And as long as the strength of the inference supports a jury conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, the State has met its burden of production of evidence sufficient to support the verdict. More evidence would advance the State’s burden of persuasion, of course. But that is proverbial gravy; the State has already made out its prima facie case, producing sufficient evidence to convince some jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See Rogers v. State, 774 S.W.2d 247, at 256 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). In the premises it does not unconstitutionally shift the State’s burden of proof to suggest, as some of the cases do, that the defendant could have tested the whole of the substance himself in order to meet and defeat the State’s burden of persuasion, if he thinks such testing will exonerate him. E.g., People v. Yosell, supra.
But a sample taken from only one of multiple receptacles will not support the inference that all of the receptacles contain that same substance, even if the substances in all the receptacles appear to be the same, if other substances resemble the sampled substance. Because any of a number of substances look like powdered cocaine or heroin, the inference that the whole, or a requisite amount, is the same as a sample taken from fewer than all of the receptacles, or at least enough receptacles to show the requisite amount, is not compelling enough to justify a jury finding to a level of confidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, in order to satisfy its initial burden of production, the State must conclusively test at least a sample of a sufficient number of the receptacles to prove up the requisite amount of contraband. In these premises, it is not surprising that many courts have observed that when the State has at its disposal a test that can conclusively prove that a requisite amount of a substance was contraband, but does not avail itself of that test, it has not made out a prima facie case. E.g., People v. Ayala, supra; People v. Maiden, supra.*
The question might be framed, then, as follows: Does “rock” cocaine have a sufficiently distinctive texture and appearance that a sample from one receptacle that tests conclusive for cocaine will justify the inference, beyond a reasonable doubt, that substances of like texture and appearance found in other receptacles in close proximity to the first are also cocaine. In Bond v. State, supra, the Florida court opined that rock *727cocaine “more closely resembles pills than powder.” It therefore concluded that testing the contents of one of 139 baggies of suspected rock cocaine was sufficient to support the inference that all was cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. This seems an unacceptably superficial analysis. In State v. Ballom, supra, a Louisiana court observed that no evidence showed that the 1095 baggies of rock cocaine “were not fungible.” This analysis begs the question. Without first deciding whether a sample of some of the baggies of what appeared to be rock cocaine was sufficient to meet the State’s burden to produce evidence that all of the baggies contained cocaine, the observation that no evidence proved the contents of the baggies were not fungible only serves to shift the burden of proof. The Missouri case of State v. Gibson, supra, is more persuasive. In Gibson:
“the criminalist testified cocaine base is made by mixing cocaine powder with baking soda and water and cooking it. The resulting crystalline will fall to the bottom and is cut up into smaller chunks. This evidence is probative that the rocks were all cut from one ‘batch’ of rock cocaine, rather than separate sources. Also, by the time the criminalist looked at the rocks, they had broken into numerous chunks, uniform in color and consistency. The criminalist stated breakage was characteristic of rocks containing cocaine.”
856 S.W.2d at 80. We have no like testimony in the instant case, nor any other evidence to show that rock cocaine has distinctive characteristics not commonly shared by other substances. It is therefore more difficult to conclude that a sample taken from one baggie that positively proves to be cocaine will support the inference that all fifty-four baggies contain cocaine to the level of confidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, on the facts of this case I cannot conclude that the court of appeals erred to hold the State met its burden to produce evidence sufficient to justify the inference beyond a reasonable doubt that at least 28 grams of the substance contained in the fifty-four baggies was cocaine. The evidence does show that the substances in all of the baggies were of like texture and appearance, even if it does not specifically reveal just how distinctive and exclusive to “rock” cocaine that texture and appearance may be. The baggies were all seized at the same time and place in a classic “crack house.” Three of the fifty-four baggies proved conclusively to contain cocaine. The police conducted a “spot” test on another baggie, and the analyst, two more, which all showed positive for cocaine. Given these circumstances, the jury could infer that all the similarly situated baggies contained the same substance, and that that substance was cocaine. Moreover, the strength of that inference, while less than overwhelming, was at least sufficient that I would not overturn the court of appeals majority’s conclusion that a rational jury could accept it as true beyond a reasonable doubt. Arcila v. State, 834 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992). I therefore agree that the court of appeals’ judgment should be affirmed.

III.

So long as the State has satisfied its burden of production, we may legitimately expect the accused to produce evidence, if any, to counter that prima facie case. Bunn testified that a lack of “funding” limited her ability to test a sample from all fifty-four baggies in this cause. She added, however, that at a defendant’s request, she would analyze “all the drugs.” It is doubtful that due process requires the State to actually generate potentially exculpatory evidence. See San Miguel v. State, 864 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Cr. App.1993). Due process does require, however, that indigent defendants be provided the resources to investigate the existence of such evidence. See De Freece v. State, 848 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); McBride v. State, 838 S.W.2d 248 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Article 26.05(a), V.A.C.C.P.
The plurality today observes that “appellant could have conducted independent chemical tests on all fifty-four baggies to show they did not contain the same substance.” Op. at 722. Because the court of appeals was justified in concluding that the State met its burden of production, I do not regard the plurality’s observation as an unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proof here. For whatever reason, appellant did not exercise *728his due process right to access to whatever resources he needed to investigate and counter, if possible, the State’s prima facie case. Nevertheless, the plurality’s naked observation is misleading, and could lead to improper burden-shifting in the general run of cases. See e.g., State v. Bottom, supra. This kind of language should be eschewed.
Because the plurality neglects its responsibility as a discretionary review court to explain and illuminate, I join the judgment of the Court, but not the plurality opinion.
MANSFIELD, J., joins this opinion.
MALONEY, J., joins Parts I and II of this opinion and otherwise joins the judgment of the Court.

 This observation puts me in mind of the former rule, now defunct, that in a weak circumstantial evidence case, where the record shows there was other evidence available to the State which would have shed additional light on the facts, and the State neither adduced that evidence, nor satisfactorily accounted for its failure to do so, an appellate court will find there is a reasonable doubt as a matter of law. E.g., Cruz v. State, 482 S.W.2d 264 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). This Court abandoned this appellate presumption in Chambers v. State, 711 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). In doing so, the Court emphasized that evidentiary sufficiency should be measured against what the evidence does show, not what it does not Chambers is right to reject the Cruz rule to the extent that once the State has made out its prima facie case, we may legitimately expect the defendant to produce any evidence that undercuts its burden of persuasion.