Court Opinion

ID: 9770747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:20:45.6888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:20.430555
License: Public Domain

ANDELL, Justice,
dissenting.
I would hold the evidence in this case is legally insufficient, and I would reverse and reform the judgment of the trial court to reflect acquittal.
Affirmative Links
It is not sufficient for the State merely to show that the defendant was the only one in the vicinity of contraband or was driving a vehicle containing narcotics. Palmer v. State, 857 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.). To prove knowing possession, the State must present evidence that affirmatively links the defendant to the controlled substance. Id. at 900.
In Hurtado v. State, this Court listed an array of factors that tend to indicate a defendant’s knowledge of and control over the contraband. 881 S.W.2d 738, 743 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd). We must gauge the logical force of the factors, alone or in combination, to link the defendant to the contraband. Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex.App.-Austin 1994, no pet.).
The Hurtado factors apply as follows:
(1) Was the contraband in plain view?
Shinneman testified that he could not see the cocaine. He said he saw the pipe in plain view in the divider between the driver’s seat and the passenger’s seat; however, he never sat in the driver’s seat, and he *408had to crawl across the seat to see the pipe.
(2) Was the contraband conveniently accessible to the accused.?
Shinneman testified that the pipe was in the center console, but closer to the driver’s seat.
(3) Was the contraband in a place owned by the accused?
Newton testified appellant did not own the car. The State did not contradict that testimony.
(4) Was the contraband in a car driven by the accused?
Appellant was the sole occupant and driver of the car.
(5) Was the contraband found on the same side of the car as the accused?
The pipe was found in the console area between the front seats, but closer to appellant.
(6) Was the contraband found in an enclosed space?
The console had no lid, and Newton testified that it was shallow enough for items to roll off.
(7) Was the paraphernalia to use the contraband in view of or found on the accused?
Newton testified the car was very messy and cluttered. The pipe was only four inches long and could have been lost in that clutter. Although Shinneman stated the pipe was in plain view, he admitted never looking at it from the driver’s seat and having to crawl across the driver’s seat to see it.
(8) Did the conduct of the accused indicate a consciousness of guilt?
There is no evidence appellant made any furtive gestures or admitted guilt.
(9) Did the accused have a special relationship to the contraband?
Police did not find contraband on appellant and took no fingerprints from the pipe. Furthermore, appellant showed no signs of intoxication or strange behavior attributable to smoking crack.
(10) Did the occupant of the automobile give any conflicting statements about the relevant matters?
Appellant made no conflicting statements.
(11) Were any affirmative statements made that connect the accused to the contraband?
There is no evidence of any such statements.
Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, appellant was in a car by himself with a makeshift crack pipe in plain view that contained crack and was on his side of the ear. The same would be true of anyone who sat in this driver’s seat.
Proof of strong suspicion or mere probability is insufficient to support a conviction. Brazier v. State, 748 S.W.2d 505, 507 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd). Unavoidable are the facts that the cocaine was not visible to the naked eye and that no evidence showed the pipe was in plain view from appellant’s perspective.
I would hold that a rational trier of fact could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant exercised care, custody, control, and management over the contraband and that defendant knew the substance possessed was contraband.
MIRABAL and WILSON, JJ., join the dissenting opinion.