Court Opinion

ID: 9681985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:02:57.031813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.879142
License: Public Domain

WILSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority because I am unable to distinguish the facts in this case from those in Davila v. State, 664 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). If there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Mrs. Davila, there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of this appellant.
The basic question before us is whether the evidence is sufficient to show appellant exercised indirect control over the drugs.1 I believe the evidence is insufficient to prove appellant guilty of a constructive transfer of the drugs. More specifically, the evidence is insufficient to prove that prior to the sale appellant had either direct or indirect control over the drugs, a necessary element of constructive transfer.
The majority has outlined in its opinion a process the trial court could have followed in arriving at his verdict of guilt. Under the applicable standard of review, this is our Court’s appropriate task. I respectfully suggest that this process is clouded by an unproven assumption.
In its conclusion to the sufficiency point of error, the majority makes the following statement:
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that appellant exercised indirect control over the drugs, that the juvenile acted under his direction, and that he was aware of Dora, the transferee.
Why has the majority decided “that the juvenile acted under his [the appellant’s] direction”? The opinion is not clear to me on what foundation this conclusion rests. If this conclusion is based only on the evidence contained in the record, such evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion. If the conclusion is only an assumption derived singularly from the fact that appellant was an adult, and the transferor of the drugs, a juvenile, then such an assumption cannot be rationally inferred from that lone fact.
Does the evidence prove the juvenile acted under the direction of the appellant absent any assumptions about their relationship? The statements made by the majority, that appellant exercised indirect control over the drugs, and that the juvenile acted under appellant’s direction, are redundant when stated as a conclusion. If the juvenile acted at appellant’s direction, that fact is sufficient standing alone to prove indirect control over the drugs within the facts of this case. I assume the majority means that appellant exercised indirect control over the drugs because the juvenile acted under his direction.
The only evidence mentioned by the majority relative to the narrow issue of the relationship between the two is the statement that appellant “monitored” the actual transfer of the drugs in the car between the officer and the juvenile. I find nothing in the evidence to indicate how the majority concluded that appellant “monitored” the transaction as distinguished from finding appellant could see and hear the transaction as the officer testified. The use of the word monitoring implies control. I fear the majority has reached its conclusion, that appellant “monitored” the transaction, *260based on an unproven assumption outside the evidence about the relationship between appellant and the juvenile.
Is it rational for a factfinder to assume from the respective ages alone that the juvenile acted under the direction of appellant? It would seem to be only a common sense conclusion drawn from life’s experiences that anyone could properly and rationally infer that a juvenile, when acting together with an adult, would ordinarily act under the adult’s direction. Par too often, individual victims and our society have suffered from juveniles who initiate even the vilest of crimes without the slightest direct assistance from their elders. This assertion is knowable from the juvenile cases brought before this court. Generalized knowledge of frequent patterns of how adults use juveniles in drug transactions cannot be a substitute for proof. It may well be that adults often use juveniles as covers for their control of drugs, but I believe the law requires the relationship between the two must be proven and not assumed.
In short, I do not believe that the majority’s conclusion, much less control over the drugs, can be rationally inferred from the mere fact alone that appellant was an adult, and the transferor, a juvenile. The State has the burden to prove control, and must do so, by competent evidence.
Finally, ignoring any analysis of the relationship between appellant and the juvenile, is there any evidence that appellant exercised indirect control over the drugs?
The majority distinguishes Davila on the grounds that Mrs. Davila did not indicate to the undercover officers that she personally was selling drugs, whereas the appellant in this case did. This distinction is sound if the evidence suggested by the majority as present in this case, but absent from Davila, is relevant to the issue of control and is sufficient in itself, or in combination with other evidence, to prove control beyond a reasonable doubt.
The officer testified that the hand and head gestures made by the four individuals on the street, including appellant, were an indication to him that they “probably wanted to make a transaction.” “Well, it’s common knowledge, if you work undercover, that if they give you some kind of head gesture, that they are selling drugs.”
Assuming that such a generalized, subjective, judgment is probative of the fact that an individual is selling drugs, is it relevant to the issue of control under the facts of this case? Is evidence of a person indicating a desire to sell drugs the same thing, and a substitute for evidence of a person controlling the drugs being sold? The majority apparently concludes that it is, but I think not. Whatever the importance of the hand and head gestures as indicating a person is selling drugs, the other two members of the group the officer testified were making the signs were released at the scene and not charged.
The majority also seems to hint without directly saying that the affirmative acts of appellant (approaching the undercover officer, directing him to park, and asking him what he wanted), is contrasted from Mrs. Davila’s more passive actions. The evidence in Davila however, indicates Mrs. Davila asked the undercover officer what he wanted as did appellant. The evidence in Davila does not indicate whether she got off the sofa where she was sitting and “approached” the officer before making the inquiry, or whether she instructed the officer to sit down (to park) while she left to transmit the information to the person with the drugs. I do not understand how the majority’s highlighted facts distinguish Davila in any determinant sense.
The majority also cites Woods v. State, 734 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, vacated and remanded on other grounds, 758 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), as holding there was sufficient evidence of constructive delivery where the suspect initiated, and was present during the transaction, even though he did not hand over the contraband or accept the money. The actual holding of the case was that Woods was guilty of a constructive transfer as a party to the sale. Nowhere does our court say that Woods was guilty of the constructive transfer, or that Woods exercised any control over the drugs, con*261structively or otherwise. Factually Woods stands in the same shoes as appellant in this case, but here, the law of parties was not applied. The First Court stated through the Honorable Jack Smith:
“It is evident that appellant (Woods) had relayed Reeves’ (the undercover officer) request for cocaine to Stevenson, because Stevenson was aware when Reeves entered the apartment how much cocaine she wanted to purchase. Stevenson constructively transferred the cocaine to Reeves by entrusting it to Jackson, and ordering him to make the transfer to Reeves.”
There is no evidence in this case that appellant entrusted cocaine to the juvenile or ordered him to make the transfer. The judge in this case might well have found appellant guilty as a party to an actual, rather than constructive, transfer of drugs by the juvenile, but that finding is not synonymous in evidentiary burden with guilt by constructive transfer. The Davila court also notes the absence of the appellant therein not being charged with being a party to the transfer. Davila at 724. The holding in Woods also supports reversal of the case before us.
The majority indicates appellant is guilty as a party. I find nothing in the transcript to indicate appellant was found guilty as a party. Finally, one cannot be a party to a constructive transfer and a principal in a constructive transfer at the same time. Each concept requires a different burden of evidence for the State to meet.
I find no distinction between this case and Davila. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court, and order the appellant acquitted.

. The State makes no claim that the evidence shows direct control.