Baltazar v. State
Decision Date | 30 June 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 13-81-094-CR,13-81-094-CR |
Citation | 638 S.W.2d 130 |
Parties | Lazaro C. BALTAZAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Knox Jones, J. Roberto Rodriguez, McAllen, for appellant.
Robert J. Salinas, Crim. Dist. Atty., Edinburg, for appellee.
Before UTTER, KENNEDY and GONZALEZ, JJ.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine. In his first ground of error appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support that conviction. We agree.
On January 6, 1980, police officers in McAllen received information from an informant that appellant had been selling expensive rings which they believed to have been stolen in a recent robbery of a local jewelry store. They were told that appellant had been conducting this activity in local bars. That evening, while appellant was in the Golden Cue, a bar, officers were waiting outside. After appellant exited the Golden Cue with a female companion and they drove off together, the informant told the officers that appellant had "the merchandise." The officers followed appellant for several blocks before stopping the vehicle which he was driving. Upon appellant's disembarking from the automobile, a pat-down search of his person was conducted which revealed a sizeable amount of cash and betting slips for an upcoming football game. A search of the car at the scene produced nothing germane to this case. Appellant was placed under arrest for possession of gambling paraphernalia. The vehicle was impounded and taken to the police station. During a search there, a substance identified as cocaine was found in an envelope in a kleenex box on the dashboard.
When the accused has been charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic or dangerous drug, the State must prove that he exercised care, control and management over the substance, and that he knew that what he possessed was contraband. E.g., Woolridge v. State, 514 S.W.2d 257, 258 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Payne v. State, 480 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Mere presence at the scene does not justify a finding of possession. Woolridge, supra; Payne, supra.
Harvey v. State, 487 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (emphasis supplied).
Although these "affirmative links" may be proved by circumstantial evidence, id., when such is the case, the evidence must be sufficient to disprove the outstanding hypothesis of possession by others. Brock v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 339, 285 S.W.2d 745, 747 (1956). Proof amounting only to a mere probability or a strong suspicion will not do. Id.
In the instant case, there was no evidence regarding ownership of the car which appellant was driving at the time of his arrest. See Presswood v. State, 548 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) ( ). Nor was there any evidence as to how long the vehicle had been in appellant's possession. See Hahn v. State, 502 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) ( ). The only period of time about which there is evidence of appellant having custody and control of the premises in which the contraband was found related to the several blocks he drove from the Golden Cue to where he was stopped. There was nothing to indicate that he had sole access to the auto, Payne, supra, at 734; nothing to indicate that he was under the influence of the drug at the time of his arrest, Presswood, supra, at 400; no other quantity of the substance was found on appellant's person, Powell v. State, 502 S.W.2d 705, 709 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zertuche v. State, 13-88-239-CR
...through circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be sufficient to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of possession by others. Baltazar v. State, 638 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no pet.). When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in cases where contraband is discover......
-
Warren v. State, 05-96-00092-CR
...of car defendant was driving insufficient to sustain conviction for possession where there were no other affirmative links); Baltazar v. State, 638 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no pet.) (cocaine found on dashboard of car driven by defendant insufficient to sustain convict......
-
Humason v. State, 01-84-0783-CR
...possessed it. Reyes v. State, 575 S.W.2d 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Presswood v. State, 548 S.W.2d 398 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Baltazar v. State, 638 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no In Presswood, as in the instant case, there was no proof that the accused driver owned or had access ......
-
Cooper v. State
...the driver and the sole occupant of the car. Thus, Thomas was arguably a stronger case for affirmance than the instant case. In Baltazar v. State, 638 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no pet.), the court reversed where the defendant drove a car with a passenger, and cocaine was fo......