Court Opinion

ID: 9668876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:29:23.433208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:22.570111
License: Public Domain

O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting.
May the State convict a defendant for knowingly possessing an invisible amount of a controlled substance? The majority says yes; I say no. This is one more in the long line of appeals challenging convictions based on trace amounts of a controlled substance.
Under a sufficiency point of error, the appellant argues the trace amount of cocaine was “too small to support a conviction.” The majority correctly states the test for determining “knowing” possession: If the amount of the controlled substance seized from a defendant can be seen and measured, it is sufficient to establish that the defendant knew it was a controlled substance. Johnson v. State, 658 S.W.2d 623, 627 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Thomas v. State, 807 S.W.2d 786, 789 (Tex.App.— *902Houston [1st Dist.j 1991, pet. dism’d). This is a conjunctive test, not a disjunctive one. The drug must be seen and measured.
I will address the second part of the test first — whether the controlled substance could be measured. This part of the test no longer poses a limitation on how small an amount can be knowingly possessed. By using a spectrograph, a chemist can measure something so small it cannot be seen. Thus, the advance of chemistry has made this part of the test worthless — the chemist can measure an invisible amount of a controlled substance. Surely we cannot hold a person responsible for knowingly possessing something that is invisible to the naked eye and visible only to a spectrograph.1
If either part of the two-part test remains valid, it is the first part — whether the cocaine can be seen. Officer Baud did not say he saw cocaine in the pipe; he merely said he saw “soot” inside the pipe. Interestingly enough, that same soot was still present in the crack pipe at trial after the chemist had washed the pipe with acid.
The chemist testified that the cocaine was a film inside the glass pipe. He said .28 milligrams of cocaine might be visible if aggregated; but if spread out, as it was in the glass tube, it is probably not visible. He said a person could look at the glass tube and know only that it had been used for something and was not new. He said, as a chemist, he could not say the film inside the glass tube was cocaine without testing it.
The trace amount in this case, .28 milligrams, could not be seen. Thus, on the first part of the test, we should acquit because the evidence fails the only legitimate part of the test, that is, whether there was enough of the substance to be seen. Most controlled substances are just a white powder. Here, the controlled substance was not even a white powder, but merely a transparent film inside a glass that even a chemist said he would not know was cocaine without testing it.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has not given the lower courts a consistent approach to the issue of the minimum amount of a narcotic necessary to sustain a conviction. In Tomlin v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 108, 338 S.W.2d 735, 737 (1960), the court held 1.7 milligrams of heroin was sufficient to sustain a conviction.2 In Coleman v. State, 545 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), the court held 5.06 milligrams of cocaine was not sufficient to support a conviction.3 In Kent v. State, 562 S.W.2d 855, 856 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), the court held 3.2 milligrams of cocaine was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
I would sustain the appellant’s point of error on the requirement that the drug be “seen,” thus eliminating the need to even address the “affirmative links” portion of the inquiry. Assuming, however, there had been enough of the controlled substance to be seen and measured, I will now discuss the affirmative links.
The majority’s actual finding on the affirmative links analysis is that the trace amount was located in a crack pipe between the appellant’s feet on the floorboard of the car.4 The majority ignores *903the fact that a glass pipe on the floorboard of a car would be difficult to see at 3:45 a.m. Officer Baud testified it was hard to see in the car, because of all the shadows. He had to use his flashlight to see if there was anything in the car.5 After the appellant got out of the car, Officer Baud checked the car for weapons with his flashlight, and that is when he discovered the glass pipe. He further testified the appellant did not have a flashlight. He said he did not see the appellant lean over, drop the crack pipe, or make any gesture to indicate he was trying to hide it. When Officer Baud approached the car, he said he did not smell anything burning, and there was no testimony indicating the crack pipe was warm or hot. There was nothing, therefore, that showed recent use.6 On this record, I would find the evidence does not support the affirmative links part of the analysis.
I would sustain the appellant’s point of error because the .28 milligrams of cocaine was invisible and thus could not be seen, and I would also sustain the point of error because the crack pipe was not affirmatively linked to the appellant.

.I believe the test should be reformulated and suggest that before a defendant is convicted of "knowing” possession of a controlled substance, the substance must be seen, measured, and tested, and after testing, enough of the substance must remain to permit the defendant to have his chemist test the substance. A defendant is entitled to have the contraband tested by his own chemist if he makes a timely request for such an opportunity. Mendoza, v. State, 583 S.W.2d 396, 398 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). If we require the State to prosecute only when it can test and preserve enough substance for the defendant’s expert to test, we will preserve the integrity of the sufficiency of the evidence test. Either that or we should apply the same test we apply in marihuana cases: A defendant cannot be convicted of possessing an amount that is less than a useable amount.

. In Tomlin, the court described the heroin as 1700 micrograms, which converts to 1.7 milligrams.

. In Coleman, the defendant was found with s/28,ooo of an ounce, which is the equivalent of 5.06 milligrams. The formula is 5/28,ooo oz. = .000178571 oz.; .000178571 oz./l x 1 mg./ .00003527 oz. = 5.06 mg.

. I find it interesting that the majority emphasizes the affirmative links argument over the seen and measured one, spending only a para*903graph on seen and measured and five paragraphs on affirmative links. The affirmative links analysis in trace amount cases generally comes into play after the court finds the trace amount of drug can be seen and measured. That the majority spends so little time on seen and measured and devotes so much space to affirmative links speaks volumes about the state of the test for knowing possession of drugs: It is the location of the minute amount of drugs that is important, not whether it can be seen and measured. Effectively, we presume that a person knowingly possesses drugs, even invisible amounts, if the drugs are found close to the defendant.

. The majority ignores Officer Baud’s testimony about his need for his flashlight. This evidence is critical because the glass pipe could not be seen without the flashlight. This fact undermines the affirmative links finding.

. Officer Baud initially testified the soot in the crack pipe was common as to recently used crack pipes. He was forced to retract that statement when he realized seven months later, there was still soot on the pipe. He changed his answer to soot on the pipe means the pipe has been used.