Manuel v. State, 01-88-01060-CR
| Decision Date | 21 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-88-01060-CR,01-88-01060-CR |
| Citation | 782 S.W.2d 335 |
| Parties | Roosevelt MANUEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Michael B. Chalrton, Charles F. Baird, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Harris County, Cheryl Boyd, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, for appellee.
Before EVANS, C.J., and HUGHES and COHEN, JJ.
A jury found appellant guilty of possession of cocaine. The trial court found two enhancement paragraphs true and assessed punishment of 30 years imprisonment.
On July 15, 1988, Officer Yzquierdo stopped a car driven by Cheryl Denise Jackson, because she was driving at night without rear or brake lights. Appellant was a front-seat passenger. Jackson had no identification or driver's license, so the officer removed her from the car. As Jackson got out, Officer Yzquierdo saw her drop a small pipe that, based on his experience, he believed to be used for smoking crack cocaine. Officer Yzquierdo arrested Jackson for possession of drug paraphernalia. Jackson asked Officer Yzquierdo if appellant could drive the car home. The officer asked appellant for a driver's license, but appellant had none. The officer then asked Jackson if she wanted the car towed, and Jackson stated she did. Officer Yzquierdo asked appellant to get out of the car so it could be towed. As appellant got out, Yzquierdo saw a pipe like Jackson's on appellant's seat. Officer Yzquierdo immediately arrested appellant for possessing drug paraphernalia.
Appellant was taken to the city jail and searched by Officer Wright. Wright discovered a cigarette pack in appellant's sock. The pack was a small plastic baggy containing a visible amount of a white, powdery substance. The substance was tested by a chemist with the Houston Police Department, Donald Davis, who found that it tested positive for cocaine. Davis determined that the total weight of the substance was approximately 2.2 milligrams.
Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to show he knowingly possessed cocaine because the amount recovered was so small.
The test is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. Alexander v. State, 740 S.W.2d 749, 757 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). The State must prove the accused 1) exercised care, custody, and control over the substance; and 2) knew it was contraband. Herrera v. State, 561 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Thus, knowledge of possession is an essential element of the crime. As stated in Reyes v. State, 480 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.Crim.App.1972),
In a trial for the illegal possession of a narcotic drug, the basic element which the state must prove is that the accused intended to violate the law by knowingly possessing such drug.
When the quantity is too small to be measured, there must be evidence other than mere possession to prove that the defendant knew the substance in his possession was a controlled substance. Shults v. State, 575 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex.Crim.App.1979).
The State's chemist analyzed the substance and testified there was a visible amount, approximately the size of four to six pinheads, of white powder in the plastic bag which tested positive for cocaine, the total weight of the substance being approximately 2.2 milligrams.
We note that this is not a case where the amount of cocaine was too small to be seen or measured. This distinguishes several cases on which appellant relies. See Shults, 575 S.W.2d at 29; Pelham v. State 164 Tex.Crim. 226, 298 S.W.2d 171 (1957) (); Greer v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 377, 292 S.W.2d 122 (1956) ().
In Coleman v. State, 545 S.W.2d 831 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), the court held that cocaine weighing no more than 5/28,000 of an ounce was too small to support a conviction. The court noted that such a quantity could be weighed because it was possible to weigh as little as 1/280,000 ounce of cocaine. Id. at 835. The court held that a quantity so small that it could be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State
...) (judgment reversed on other grounds), PDR dismissed as improvidently granted, 840 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Manuel v. State, 782 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st] 1989), PDR ref'd; Chavez v. State, 768 S.W.2d 366, 367-368 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th] 1989), PDR ref'd; Alejandro v. Stat......
-
State v. McCarthy
...(1964). Even when the smallest amounts have been at issue, courts have nevertheless upheld convictions. See, e.g., Manuel v. State, 782 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (amount of cocaine equivalent to the size of four to six pinheads); Chavez v. State, 768 S.W.2d 366, 367-68 (Tex.Crim.A......
-
Joseph v. State
...198, 200 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Campbell v. State, 822 S.W.2d 776, 777 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992); Manuel v. State, 782 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989); and, Lopez v. State, 760 S.W.2d 770, 776 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1988). Additionally, possession of the cont......
-
Amis v. State
...of the witness is not reversible if it is invited by defense argument. Chapman, 503 S.W.2d at 238; Manuel v. State, 782 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. ref'd); Carter, 650 S.W.2d at In the instant case, the prosecutor's remarks were invited by defense counsel's sta......
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...possession of contraband case; noting that the charge included a Section 6.01(b) instruction in the abstract section); Manuel v. State , 782 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. ref’d) (no error to deny the defendant’s particular voluntariness instruction in application ......
-
Table of cases
...Mann v. State 58 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) 11:970 Manning v. State 730 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) 3:1140 Manuel v. State 782 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. ref’d) 3:15 Marek v. State 94 S.W. 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1907) 5:1440 Marinos v. State 186 S.W.3d 1......