Court Opinion

ID: 9684562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:01:04.588934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:57.149855
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(dissenting).
Once again this Court has seen fit to rest its decision upon the tenuous “close juxtaposition” or “close relation” doctrine. *896The record reflects that Sgt. Belvm only saw appellant place a crumpled up package of cigarettes in the back pocket of the elevator operator, and nothing more. No one actually saw appellant pass the narcotics in question. The elevator operator was alone for a minute or two on the return trip from the fifth floor to the first floor.
Admittedly, the evidence presented is sufficient to support a conviction based on the circumstantial evidence. But the error lies in the court not instructing the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence. I must again question, as I did in Oltiveros v. State, 474 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) and Riggins v. State, 468 S.W.2d 841 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), the reasoning behind such a doctrine as this. What possible harm could occur in charging the -jury on circumstantial evidence? It would be far better to allow the charge in all such cases than for this Court to affirm the conviction on such a flimsy principle.
For the reasons stated herein and in the previously cited cases, I respectfully dissent.
ONION, P. J., joins in this dissent. •