stating that the residue found in the pipe illustrated that the pipe had been used to smoke cocaine, which, in turn, constituted an indicia establishing knowledge
How later courts described this case
- stating that the residue found in the pipe illustrated that the pipe had been used to smoke cocaine, which, in turn, constituted an indicia establishing knowledge
- concluding that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate a knowing possession when it was shown that, among other things, a pipe had recently been used
- noting that the fact that “the residue containing the cocaine was visible on the ‘crack pipe’” supported finding that the defendant knew the substance in his possession was cocaine
- finding evidence legally sufficient where evidence showed accused knowingly possessed cocaine
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
Under Daniels v. State, 574 S.W.2d 127, 128-129 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), and Shults v. State, 575 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), when the amount of the controlled substance is so small that it cannot be quantitatively measured or seen with the naked eye, the State bears the burden of producing other evidence which will demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant knowingly possessed the substance. Additionally, evidence of mere possession of the substance is insufficient, Shults, 575 S.W.2d at 30 , as is simple possession of the container in which the trace substance was found. Garner v. State, 848 S.W.2d 799 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1993).
Under this standard of review, I believe the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate appellant knowingly possessed cocaine because the State introduced evidence appellant appeared intoxicated, there was residue in the crack pipe, and the mouthpiece on the crack pipe was wet (as if recently used). From these circumstances, a rational trier of fact could conclude appellant knowingly possessed the controlled substance.
With these comments, I join the majority opinion.