Morris v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-19-00167-CR,02-19-00167-CR |
| Parties | AARON RAY MORRIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 43rd District Court Parker County, Texas
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.
Aaron Ray Morris appeals his conviction for possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance—methamphetamine. Morris raises two points on appeal: (1) whether the State presented sufficient evidence of his mens rea; and (2) whether the trial court misstated the presumption of innocence in the jury charge. We will affirm.
Morris was stopped for traffic violations while riding an electric scooter at approximately 1:15 a.m. The stop was made by Kyle Hoagland, then an officer for the City of Reno Police Department. Morris told Officer Hoagland that he was a mechanic who had just finished working on a vehicle at a local convenience store and that he was travelling to inspect a motorcycle. Officer Hoagland detected the odor of marijuana on Morris, and Morris admitted he had been smoking the substance but denied having marijuana or a marijuana pipe in his possession. Nonetheless, Morris agreed to let Officer Hoagland search his pockets and the backpack that he was carrying.
In Morris's cargo shorts pockets, Officer Hoagland found a screwdriver, pen, and other items consistent with Morris's statements regarding his work as a mechanic. But Officer Hoagland also found what appeared to be crystal methamphetamine with an accompanying meth pipe, hidden inside the plastic wrapper of a cigarette box.1Upon discovering the methamphetamine, Officer Hoagland stated, "I guess you use meth," and placed Morris in handcuffs.
The officer then searched Morris's backpack, where he found an additional pair of shorts, another cigarette box, a variety of car-related tools and liquids, and a marijuana pipe. As Officer Hoagland dug through the backpack, Morris shook his head in apparent defeat and stated that he "d[id]n't want this life" and had "tried" to get clean but had "never been offered the opportunity" to go to rehab because "that's always been something that's been like a luxury or something that . . . I can't afford." When Officer Hoagland asked Morris how long he had "used for," Morris did not respond. And when he repeated the question later in their conversation, Morris apologized and stated that he "c[ould]n't answer that question." Officer Hoagland asked why Morris could not answer, and Morris shook his head and said, "I've had a lot on my plate," and then went on to explain his recent personal troubles.
After Officer Hoagland completed his search, he allowed Morris to call a friend to pick up his scooter and backpack. As Morris did so, he told his friend that the officer "found some stuff in my pocket."
Morris was subsequently indicted for possession of a controlled substance—namely, methamphetamine—in an amount of less than one gram. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(6), .115(a), (b). At trial, the State offered the video footage from Officer Hoagland's dashboard and body cameras into evidence and played the portion depicting the events recited above for the jury. The State relied heavily on thisfootage as well as the testimony of Officer Hoagland. The State briefly called two other witnesses—to establish the chain of custody for the evidence and the laboratory test results for the crystal methamphetamine found on Morris—before resting its case. Morris rested without calling any witnesses or presenting any additional evidence.
The trial court then charged the jury. The charge repeatedly reminded the jury that it must acquit Morris unless it found that the State had carried its burden of proof:
Neither party objected to the charge.
With these instructions from the court, the jury deliberated less than two hours before returning a guilty verdict. Morris then pleaded true to the State's two punishment enhancements,2 and the jury assessed Morris's punishment at three years' confinement. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.34, 12.425(a).
On appeal, Morris argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence of his mens rea and (2) the jury charge misstated the presumption of innocence.3
Morris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence offered to prove that his possession of methamphetamine was done intentionally or knowingly.
In our evidentiary-sufficiency review, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found the crime's essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
"[A] person commits an offense if the person knowingly or intentionally possesses a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 1"—a list that includes methamphetamine. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a); see also id. § 481.102(6). The essential elements of unlawful possession of a controlled substance are well established: (1) "the accused exercised care, control, and management over the contraband"; and (2) "the accused knew the matter was contraband." Ex parte Lane, 303 S.W.3d 702, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.01 (); Ramirez-Memije v. State, 444 S.W.3d 624, 627-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ().
Morris summarily asserts that the State "wholly failed to provide evidence on intent" and thus "failed to prove that he possessed a controlled substance intentionally or knowingly."4 But Morris does not specify what knowledge or intent he allegedly lacked—knowledge that the cigarette box was in his pocket, knowledge that the cigarette box contained a crystal substance, knowledge that the crystal substance was methamphetamine, or knowledge of something else. Although both knowledge of possession and knowledge of the nature of the substance possessed are required to convict a defendant, the latter is traditionally recited as the mens rea requirement for the offense and is thus the element Morris's ambiguous sufficiency challenge presumably intends to target. See Herrera v. State, 561 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (); cf. Ramirez-Memije, 444 S.W.3d at 627-28. Nevertheless, construing his brief liberally, we address the evidence as to both elements of the offense.
The State—following Morris's lead—overlooks the distinction between evidence that shows knowledge of possession and evidence that shows knowledge of the nature of the substance possessed and broadly argues that, following precedent from this court, the fact that contraband was found in Morris's clothing was sufficient, standing alone, to support a finding that Morris possessed all knowledge and intent necessary for the crime. The State's argument overextends our prior rulings. Unpublished opinions5 from this court have indeed recognized that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presence of an item on a defendant's person supports an inference that he knew the item was in his custody....
To continue reading
Request your trial