Opinion

Allen v. State

  • 249 S.W.3d 680
  • 2008 WL 615431
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Filed
Mar 25, 2008
Status
Published
Author
Pemberton
On the bench
Law, Pemberton, Onion
Cited by
146 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.1%

recognizing that officer’s testimony that he was able to locate cocaine on top of a refrigerator did not prove that the cocaine was in plain view of appellant, given that she was only seen in the living room and she was seven inches shorter than the officer

How later courts described this case

  • recognizing that officer’s testimony that he was able to locate cocaine on top of a refrigerator did not prove that the cocaine was in plain view of appellant, given that she was only seen in the living room and she was seven inches shorter than the officer
  • stating that when contraband is found hidden or secreted, the State must address whether the accused knew of the existence of the secreted place and its contents and that knowledge that others in the place have committed an offense does not show possession
  • holding cocaine on platter on top back of refrigerator was not in plain view of appellant who was on a couch in another room when officer entered apartment despite evidence that officer was taller than appellant and could have seen it
  • noting that “[t]he question is whether the amount of cocaine discovered should be factored into the determination of any link between appellant and the cocaine under the circumstances,” and concluding that “the factor of a large quantity of contraband [was] of little or no value in linking appellant to the cocaine” under the circumstances presented

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Byron Jermaine Prophet v. State (2010)

    id. Allen is distinguishable from the present case.
    Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)Jan 14, 2010Read it

The opinion

DISSENTING OPINION

BOB PEMBERTON, Justice.

With all respect to the majority’s thorough analysis of each “link” between Allen and the contraband, I would hold that the combined and cumulative force of all of the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is legally sufficient to support Allen’s conviction. See Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 164 (Tex.Crim. App.2006). When viewing the evidence in a neutral light, I would also hold that the evidence is factually sufficient. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.