# King v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 29, 1995 · 895 S.W.2d 701

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776989

## Case

- **Full name:** Earnest KING, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 29, 1995
- **Citations:** 895 S.W.2d 701; 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 35; 1995 WL 131958
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baird
- **Judges:** Overstreet, Clinton, Baird, Maloney, Meyers, McCormick, Mansfield
- **Cited by:** 544 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/9776989

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776989. Public record. Not legal advice.