Court Opinion

ID: 9776269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:29:07.624055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:36.194680
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
CLINTON, Judge.
In its motion for rehearing the State reiterates its position that the evidence and testimony concerning the contraband found in the trunk of the car were admissible to establish appellant’s motive in attempting to murder Sgt. Adkins.1
Because it is relevant as a circumstance tending to prove the commission of the offense, evidence may always be introduced by the State which “fairly tend[s] to raise an inference in favor of the existence of a motive on the part of the accused to commit the alleged offense.” Porter v. State, 623 S.W.2d 374, 386 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).
In Rodriguez v. State, 486 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), it was observed that “... motive refers to an emotion that would provoke or lead to the commission of a criminal offense. Evidence to show motive is the circumstantial evidence that would appear to cause or produce the emotion. When it is said that evidence going to show motive is admissible, it is meant that the circumstantial evidence is admissible that would appear to cause or produce the emotion that would in turn provoke or incite the commission of the criminal offense, [citations omitted].”
As we understand it, the State’s position is that the presence of contraband in the *5trunk of the car driven by appellant fairly tends to raise the inference that appellant attempted to kill Sgt. Adkins in order to avoid the discovery of the contraband and the apprehension of appellant for possession thereof.
When the State seeks to invoke an exception to the general rule banning admission of extraneous transactions into evidence, it nevertheless assumes the burden of demonstrating that the proffered evidence is material, that the accused was a participant in the extraneous transaction, and that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential prejudicial effect. Phillips v. State, 659 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); McCann v. State, 606 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).
On original submission the State’s argument was rejected on the ground that the evidence failed to demonstrate appellant had care, custody and control, ergo possession, of the contraband. The State now argues that “[i]f circumstances were such that it would appear the appellant knew the contraband was in the trunk, it would show a motive for his acts regardless of whether he might be said to have had the care, custody, and control of the contraband.” In other words, proof of appellant’s knowledge of the presence of the contraband would establish a reason to kill Adkins even if such proof falls short of meeting the legal definition of possession.
The State is correct in its assertion that the evidence does not necessarily have to establish every element of the offense of possession of a controlled substance to fairly tend to suggest a motive on the part of appellant. Whether or not the extraneous fact or transaction rises to the level of an offense, however, it is still incumbent on the State to show facts connecting appellant with that extraneous transaction. The evidence must “clearly prove” appellant’s knowledge of the contraband in the trunk of the car. Thompson v. State, 615 S.W.2d 760, 761-762 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Otherwise no motive can fairly be inferred.
The trial court conducted a hearing outside the presence of the jury relative to appellant’s extraneous offense objection. Sgt. Adkins testified that appellant had two other people in the car when he was stopped, and that the car had been stolen from a Lincoln-Mercury dealership. The contraband was found in a paper sack in the trunk of the car. There was nothing in the paper sack to identify it as belonging to appellant. When appellant took the stand on his own behalf he testified that the car belonged to a friend and that he had had it “off and on” for three weeks. During this time he had the key to the trunk.
The State contends that the fact that appellant possessed the car for three weeks, during which time he had access to the contents of the trunk, provides circumstantial evidence that he knew what the trunk contained. The State did not prove continuous possession of the car for those three weeks. Nor did it show that appellant actually did or ever had reason to go into the trunk of the car. It is clear that such circumstantial evidence would fall short of establishing care, custody or control of the contraband. See Naquin v. State, 607 S.W.2d 583 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Olguin v. State, 601 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). We find that such evidence also fails to “clearly prove” appellant knew the contraband was in the trunk of the car. Thompson, supra.
Absent such clear proof that appellant knew he carried contraband, it cannot fairly be inferred that appellant attempted to kill Sgt. Adkins in order to prevent its discovery. Therefore, mere proof of the presence of the marihuana and the three vials containing cocaine, methamphetamine and an unknown powder had no probative value whatsoever. Such evidence should not have been admitted.
The State’s motion for rehearing is denied.
McCORMICK and MILLER, JJ., dissent.

. The indictment charged that appellant "... on or about January 9, 1980, did then and there unlawfully with intent to commit capital murder, attempt to cause the death of JEFFERY GENE ADKINS, hereafter styled the Complainant, a peace officer in the lawful discharge of an official duty, by intentionally pointing a gun in the direction of the Complainant and pulling the trigger, knowing at the time that the Complainant was a peace officer [emphasis added]."