Court Opinion

ID: 9646563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:03:11.822369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:39.482783
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority opinion follows Denny and Forfar v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 473 S.W.2d 503, and the subsequent cases cited. This writer dissented in each of these cases and is still of the opinion that the rule established in Denny and Forfar, supra, is incorrect and should not be followed.
In the present case, the court charged on the law of principals and instructed the jury that mere presence alone will not constitute one a principal. The court defined possession in his charge as follows:
“Possession is the actual care, control, custody and management of the thing possessed. It is that condition of fact where the person can exercise his power over the property. Ownership is not necessary to constitute possession, and is not an essential element thereof. The possession need not be exclusive; more than one person may have possession of a thing at the same time.”
Under such charge the rights of the appellant were adequately protected. It would serve no useful purpose to repeat *321the reasons in the above mentioned dissenting opinions. However, the dissent in Ramos v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 102, should be seen to show that the majority should not require a charge on circumstantial evidence in possession of contraband cases where the trial court gives an adequate definition of possession or otherwise requires the jury to believe that an accused knowingly possessed the contraband.