Court Opinion

ID: 9759231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:09:35.040664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:59.576507
License: Public Domain

BROOKSHIRE, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent. The majority opinion reverses the judgment, holding that:
“[A]n instructed verdict should have been granted because the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the methamphetamine weighed more than twenty-eight grams....”
A chemist testified that State’s Exhibit No. 4 had an aggregate weight of 42.17 grams, Exhibit No. 4 containing methamphetamine. There were some adulterants or dilutents present in Exhibit 4. TEX.REV. CIV.STATANN. art. 4476-15, sec. 1.02(4) (Vernon Supp.1986), of the Controlled Substances Act, states:
“(4) ‘Controlled substance’ means a drug, substance, or immediate precursor....”
There is evidence that other State’s exhibits contained methylamine and phenylace-tone, being precursors of methamphetamine. These other exhibits, being precursors, could produce a weight of about ¼ to V2 pound of methamphetamine, being greater than 28 grams. The indictment states that Appellant intentionally and knowingly possessed a controlled substance; namely, methamphetamine. The controlled substance did include necessary precursors of methamphetamine.
The Court charged the jury that if the jury found from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Cruse possessed a controlled substance, to-wit: Methamphetamine, in an amount less than 28 grams, “then you will find the defendant guilty of a second degree felony offense.” The Court also instructed the jury that if they found possession of more than 28 grams “then you will find the defendant guilty ... of an aggravated offense.”
I would hold that the evidence raised a fact issue that the controlled substance amounted to more than 28 grams. That is what the jury found. Carlsen v. State, 654 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Crim.App.1983, Opinion on Rehearing); Freeman v. State, 654 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.Crim.App.1983, Opinion on Rehearing); Denby v. State, 654 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Crim.App.1983, Opinion on Rehearing); Wilson v. State, 654 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.Crim.App.1983, Opinion on Rehearing) and *781Houston v. State, 663 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). We are to look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict or judgment. This rule applies to direct and circumstantial evidence cases.
The character and quality of error taking place in the trial of a felony prosecution, which would require a reversal, must be such that the reviewing court should conclude, from the entire record, that the alleged error resulted in harm and injury to the accused and, further, that the entire statement of facts and record do not authorize or justify the appellate court to conclude that the accused was not harmed or injured. 27 TEX.JUR.2rd, Criminal Law, sec. 4305 (1983); TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. ANN. art. 44.23 (Vernon Supp.1986) provides:
“The courts of appeals and the Court of Criminal Appeals shall hear and determine appeals in criminal actions at the earliest time it may be done, with due regard to the rights of parties and proper administration of justice....”
TEX.R.APP.P. 78. ■ See Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective September 1, 1986, Vol. 707-708, S.W.2d, Texas Cases Only, XXIX, LXXVIII (West 1986), which reads:
“The courts of appeals shall hear and determine appeals in criminal actions at the earliest time it may be done, with due regard to the rights of parties and proper administration of justice.
The record shows that the substances contained in State’s Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5 were taken from a methamphetamine lab located in Hardin County. State’s Exhibit 6 was unequivocally identified as a picture of the inside of the trailer that housed the methamphetamine lab, showing this Appellant to be engaged in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
In Chambers v. State, 711 S.W.2d 240, 247 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), the court wrote:
“Evidence either has probative value or it does not. The burden of persuasion is concerned with the cumulative force of all the evidence and simply does not affect the probative force of a particular piece of evidence, the latter determination being the responsibility of the fact-finder. Cf. Art. 36.13, V.A.C.C.P.” (Emphasis theirs)
It is interesting to note that Richard Alton Cruse was convicted in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, in May, 1981, of unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally possessing an unlawful drug; namely, methamphetamine.
I would affirm the judgment and sentence below.