Court Opinion

ID: 9662845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:19:42.369114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:43.132245
License: Public Domain

PEEPLES, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent because the evidence, viewed favorably to the jury verdict, is sufficient. The combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances may be sufficient to support the jury’s finding. Livingston v. State, 739 S.W.2d 311, 330 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1210, 108 S.Ct. 2858, 101 L.Ed.2d 895 (1988); Beardsley v. State, 738 S.W.2d 681, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).
There was a large quantity of controlled substance, considering the amount flushed before the officers could reach the bathroom and the two baggies that they recovered. The jury could reasonably have thought that whatever Mario flushed first was at least as incriminating as what remained unflushed by the time the police fought their way to the bathroom. Lookouts shouted “Los Narcos, Mario” when the raid team arrived and exited their cars. Appellant used force to prevent Officer Delgado, who was wearing a raid jacket with “Police” prominently displayed, from going up the stairs where the toilet was flushing. The jury was entitled, under all the evidence, to find appellant guilty as a party, the primary actor being Mario Bara-jas (whom the lookouts addressed when they shouted “Los Narcos, Mario,” “Get the stuff to Mario,” and whose flushing efforts appellant was trying to protect at the stairs).
I would hold that the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.