Court Opinion

ID: 9673366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:10:42.907318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:21.761936
License: Public Domain

OVERSTREET, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I believe that the majority overly complicates the issue of a substance’s weight in light of adulterants and dilutants. We are jurists, not chemists. I believe that a more legalistic approach to determine evidence sufficiency, rather than a chemically analytical approach, is more appropriate. After taking such an approach in the instant cause, I think that there is sufficient evidence of possession of the aggregating weight as alleged. I believe that the majority’s hy-perscientific methodology, arising from McGlothlin v. State, 749 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), needs to be reexamined, particularly with respect to the supposed requirement that an adulterant/dilutant “has not affected the chemical activity” of the named illegal substance.