Guiton v. State
Decision Date | 16 December 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 1154-84,1154-84 |
Citation | 742 S.W.2d 5 |
Parties | Dan Willies GUITON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Edgar A. Mason, Izak Gregory, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Anne B. Wetherholt, Bob Phillips and Knox Fitzpatrick Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
A jury found appellant guilty of the offense of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, heroin, with the intent to deliver. The court assessed punishment at sixteen years' confinement. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed appellant's conviction after finding the evidence was insufficient first, to show that appellant was in exclusive possession of the motel room in which the heroin was found and second, to link affirmatively the appellant to the contraband sufficiently to show both knowledge of and control over the contraband. Guiton v. State, 679 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1984).
The Court of Appeals gave an excellent summary of the evidence adduced at trial and we now quote therefrom:
The Court of Appeals noted that the court instructed the jury that they should consider the testimony of the witness Vineyard that he had seen the name Dan Guiton on a registration card at the motel not for the purpose of establishing the truth of such assertion but for the limited purpose of showing the motive for the witness Vineyard to place appellant under surveillance. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that there was no evidence to show to whom room 289 had been rented. In addition the Court found that there was no evidence that the appellant had ever been in the room before nor was there any testimony that the suitcase found in the room was the same, or even similar to the suitcase carried by appellant at the airport.
The State argues in its petition for discretionary review that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the only reasonable hypothesis raised by the evidence is that appellant had the exclusive care, custody, control and management of the contraband and knew that the substance was indeed heroin. The State maintains that there is no other reasonable explanation for appellant's evasive and furtive conduct between the time he initially met Tucker at the airport and his arrival at the LaQuinta. Furthermore, the State argues that while there is no testimony in the record that the bag found in room 289 was the same bag carried by appellant when he arrived at DFW from Los Angeles, it is no small coincidence that the appellant arrived in Dallas carrying a small black bag, departed the airport in a cab while carrying the bag, was dropped off by the cabdriver at the LaQuinta, then returned to the airport minus the black bag. Furthermore, the State argues that appellant's actions in retrieving the key to room 289, his answers to the officer's questions, his consent to the officer's entry and search of the room, his action of unlocking the door to room 289 and giving the officers access to the room clearly show his control over the motel room. The State further argues that even if there is an outstanding reasonable hypothesis that someone else entered the room and put the heroin inside the chair cushion, the evidence is still sufficient to show that appellant had joint care, custody, control and management over the heroin because he knew the key to the room was on the porch light and he knew this to be his room. The State asserts that appellant's knowledge that the heroin was in the room is evidenced by the repeated furtive and evasive actions he took between leaving the airport the first time in the taxi and finally arriving at the motel in the Buick.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. State
...also occupied the premises, is not usually sufficient in and of itself to justify a finding of joint possession. Guiton v. State, 742 S.W.2d 5, 8 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). Here, appellant was not even a renter but temporarily present on the premises as a baby 18. This proposition of law is best......
-
Edwards v. State
...the place where the police found the contraband, and whether the accused had convenient access to the contraband. Guiton v. State, 742 S.W.2d 5, 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (op. on PDR). Other factors include whether the police found the contraband in plain view or in areas private to the accused......
-
Musick v. State
...by showing additional facts and circumstances that indicate the accused's knowledge and control of the contraband. Guiton v. State, 742 S.W.2d 5, 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). With these standards in mind, we will review the evidence in its proper Musick argues that the evidence presented at trial......
-
Menchaca v. State
...are identified in several opinions. See, e.g., Martin v. State, 753 S.W.2d 384, 387-388 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Guiton v. State, 742 S.W.2d 5, 8-10 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Chavez v. State, 769 S.W.2d 284, 288-89 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. ref'd). Any list of affirmative links can o......