# Cawthon v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 14, 1992 · 849 S.W.2d 346

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673366

## Case

- **Full name:** Deborah Kay CAWTHON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 14, 1992
- **Citations:** 849 S.W.2d 346; 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 187; 1992 WL 278347
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Overstreet
- **Judges:** Maloney, Overstreet, McCormick, White, Clinton, Miller
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673366

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673366. Public record. Not legal advice.