# Martin v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 18, 1988 · 753 S.W.2d 384

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863063

## Case

- **Full name:** June Martha MARTIN and Lloyd Dale Martin, Appellants, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 18, 1988
- **Citations:** 753 S.W.2d 384; 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 93; 1988 WL 48090
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Duncan
- **Judges:** McCormick, Duncan, White
- **Cited by:** 435 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/9863063

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding defendant waived right to jury-assessed punishment even though defendant filed a written motion requesting that the jury assess punishment because defendant did not object when trial court heard punishment evidence and assessed punishment
- stating possession of contraband need not be exclusive and evidence showing defendant jointly possessed with another is sufficient
- holding mere presence where others possess drugs is insufficient for conviction
- stating elements of offense

## Opinion text

DUNCAN, Judge,
concurring.
I again feel compelled to express my opposition to the Court’s reviewing a court of appeals’ judgment regarding the sufficiency of evidence. In Beardsley v. State, 738 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (Duncan, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion), I stated that “[w]e should only review those Court of Appeals’ decisions that erroneously impact the criminal law of this state.” Id., at 686 . The court of appeals’ subjective determination that there was sufficient evidence to convict Lloyd Dale Martin of aggravated possession of methamphetamine, even if it is erroneous as the majority has concluded, does not “erroneously impact the criminal law of this state.” Id. Therefore, we should never have granted the appellants’ petition for discretionary review.
On the other hand, since review was granted, I concur with the majority’s conclusion “that the state did not sustain its burden of proof that appellant was a party to the offense of possession of methamphetamine.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863063. Public record. Not legal advice.