op. denying State's motion for reh'g
How later courts described this case
- op. denying State's motion for reh'g
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Goforth v. State, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1427 (1994)
AppeUant concedes that Cawthon is distinguishable because in that case the State relied on the existence of adulterants and/or dilutants to establish the aggregate weight of the controlled substance.
The opinion
OVERSTREET, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I believe that the majority overly complicates the issue of a substance’s weight in light of adulterants and dilutants. We are jurists, not chemists. I believe that a more legalistic approach to determine evidence sufficiency, rather than a chemically analytical approach, is more appropriate. After taking such an approach in the instant cause, I think that there is sufficient evidence of possession of the aggregating weight as alleged. I believe that the majority’s hy-perscientific methodology, arising from McGlothlin v. State, 749 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), needs to be reexamined, particularly with respect to the supposed requirement that an adulterant/dilutant “has not affected the chemical activity” of the named illegal substance.