Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-28-2020
Case Style:
Freddie D. Garrett v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 02-19-00174-CR
Judge: Lee Gabriel
Court: Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
Plaintiff's Attorney: David L. Richards
Joseph W. Spence
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Fort Worth, TX - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant Freddie D. Garrett charged with possession of methamphetamine.
In the early morning hours of January 28, 2018, Fort Worth police were
investigating a reported kidnapping when they detained Garrett in the parking lot of
the Union Gospel Mission. Garrett consented to a search of his person, during which
Officer Z. Farah found a clear, knotted plastic bag containing a white substance.
Officer Farah’s partner, Officer Samantha Bennett, testified at trial that she was
standing “right next to” Officer Farah and watched him remove the clear plastic
baggie from Garrett’s shorts pocket. Officer Bennett recalled that Officer Farah
handed her the baggie and that she held it in her closed fist until Officer Mark Stokes,
one of the two leading officers on scene, approached them. At that time, she gave the
baggie to Officer Stokes. Neither Officer Farah nor Officer Bennett placed any
identifying marks on the baggie, but Officer Stokes testified to his practice of
receiving evidence such as the baggie; placing it in a second, department-issued plastic
baggie; and placing both baggies in a larger yellow envelope, on which he wrote the
3
investigation number, the property-room-tag number, the time he entered the
evidence into the property room, and his signature. A photograph of a yellow
envelope with Officer Stokes’s signature and a description of the contained items as
“Whi Crystal like substance[,] green leafy substance” was admitted into evidence. The
white substance in the baggie was later tested and identified as 1.884 grams of
methamphetamine. A photograph of the baggie containing methamphetamine was
admitted at trial as State’s Exhibit 10.
The jury found Garrett guilty of possession of more than a gram of
methamphetamine and assessed a seven-year sentence. The trial court entered
judgment accordingly and this appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Garrett brings two points on appeal, both related to the admission of State’s
Exhibit 10. In his first point, he argues that the trial court erred by admitting the
exhibit over his objection because it “was not sufficiently authenticated due to a
failure of the State to show the beginning of the chain of custody.” In his second
point, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because
Exhibit 10 was not sufficiently authenticated. We disagree with Garrett on both
points.
A. ADMISSION OF STATE’S EXHIBIT 10
We review the trial court’s admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
Gonzales v. State, 477 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, pet. ref’d). We
4
will not disturb the trial court’s ruling as long as it is within the zone of reasonable
disagreement. Id.
Garrett argues that the photo of the baggie of methamphetamine was not
properly authenticated because the officer who seized the evidence—Officer Farah—
did not testify and no officer directly marked the baggie with initials or a signature. In
support of Garrett’s argument, he recites precedent holding that the chain of custody
is conclusively proven if the seizing officer testifies that he seized the evidence and
placed his personal mark on the evidence. See Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602, 617
(Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Garcia v. State, 537 S.W.2d 930, 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976);
Elliott v. State, 450 S.W.2d 863, 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). But this is not the only
way to establish the chain of custody and authenticate evidence seized from a
defendant.
Evidence is properly authenticated by establishing that the matter in question is
what its proponent claims. Tex. R. Evid. 901(a). Evidence seized by the police is
most often authenticated by showing its chain of custody. See, e.g., Lagrone,
942 S.W.2d at 617. Proof validating the beginning and the end of the chain of
custody supports the admission of evidence, barring any evidence of tampering or
alteration. Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Any problems
in the chain of custody affect the evidence’s weight to be assigned by the factfinder,
not its admissibility. Id. at 503–04.
5
In this case, Officer Bennett testified that she saw Officer Farah pull the baggie
of methamphetamine from Garrett’s pocket, that Officer Farah handed the baggie to
her, that she held it in a “closed fist,” and that she gave the baggie to Officer Stokes.
Officer Stokes testified to his practice of placing evidence like the baggie of
methamphetamine into a second bag to prevent contamination; placing both inside a
yellow envelope marked with the investigation number, the property-room-tag
number, the date and time, and his signature; and checking it into the property room.
A photo of a yellow envelope with an investigation number, property-room-tag
number, and date and time corresponding to Garrett’s case, bearing Officer Stokes’s
signature, and containing a small baggie of methamphetamine was admitted into
evidence. Contrary to Garrett’s argument, this evidence is sufficient to establish the
beginning of the chain of custody. Cf. id. (overruling argument that chain of custody
was not established because investigator did not personally seize the evidence).
The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by admitting State’s
Exhibit 10, and we overrule Garrett’s first point.
B. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his second point, Garrett argues that the evidence is insufficient to support
his conviction because State’s Exhibit 10 was improperly admitted. Garrett’s
argument fails because even if we agreed that State’s Exhibit 10 was improperly
admitted—which we do not—we still consider improperly admitted evidence in
6
conducting a sufficiency review. Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583, 599 (Tex. Crim. App.
2016).
Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold
that it is sufficient—any rational factfinder could have found the crime’s essential
elements beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979);
Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The evidence
established that the baggie of methamphetamine was discovered in Garrett’s pocket,
which is sufficient to establish that he knowingly exercised actual care, control, and
management over the contraband. See Toumey v. State, No. 01-16-00144-CR, 2017 WL
631841, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 16, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication) (upholding conviction for possession of
methamphetamine found in defendant’s pocket). We therefore overrule Garrett’s
second point.
Outcome: Having overruled both of Garrett’s points, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: