Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-25-2021
Case Style:
Michael Raymond Watson v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 10-19-00182-CR
Judge: JOHN E. NEILL
Court: IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Andrea L. Westerfeld
M. Ann Montgomery
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Waco, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented Michael Raymond Watson with a Possession of a Controlled Substance charge.
In his sole issue on appeal, Watson argues that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The Court of Criminal
Appeals has expressed our standard of review of a sufficiency issue as follows:
Watson v. State Page 2
When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider
whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319,
99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2017). This standard requires the appellate court to defer “to
the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the
testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from
basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. We may not re-weigh
the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Williams
v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The court conducting
a sufficiency review must not engage in a “divide and conquer” strategy
but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa, 514 S.W.3d
at 232. Although juries may not speculate about the meaning of facts or
evidence, juries are permitted to draw any reasonable inferences from the
facts so long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at
trial. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)
(citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319); see also Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16-17
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We presume that the factfinder resolved any
conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we
defer to that resolution. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2012). This is because the jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts,
the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the
testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative,
and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction
so long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is
sufficient to support the conviction. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809
(Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
We measure whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient
to support a conviction by comparing it to “the elements of the offense as
defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.” Malik v.
State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically
correct jury charge is one that “accurately sets out the law, is authorized by
the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof
or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately
describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.” Id.; see
also Daugherty v. State, 387 S.W.3d 654, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The “law
as authorized by the indictment” includes the statutory elements of the
Watson v. State Page 3
offense and those elements as modified by the indictment. Daugherty, 387
S.W.3d at 665.
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
Officer Dustin Bragg, with the Red Oak Police Department, testified that on May
8, 2017, he was patrolling traffic with Officer Kirk White. The officers observed a vehicle
driving without a vehicle registration sticker, and initiated a traffic stop. Watson was a
passenger in the vehicle. Sergeant Jason Esquibel arrived at the scene as backup.
Sergeant Esquibel had Watson and the driver of the vehicle walk to his squad car for
safety. Sergeant Esquibel testified that while they were walking to his squad car, he
observed Watson reach into his pocket and throw a plastic baggie to the ground. Sergeant
Esquibel stated that he then saw a plastic sandwich type baggie on the ground that
contained methamphetamine. The officers also found two glass pipes with
methamphetamine residue in the passenger side of the vehicle. Watson told the officers
that the baggie of methamphetamine was not his and that the baggie stuck to his shoe
when he walked in the grass.
The Texas Health and Safety Code provides that a person commits an offense if
“the person knowingly or intentionally possesses a controlled substance listed in Penalty
Group 1 …”TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (a). The Texas Penal Code
defines possession as “actual care, custody, control, or management.” TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 1.07 (39). To prove unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State must
establish that (1) the accused exercised care, control, or management over the contraband,
Watson v. State Page 4
and (2) knew the substance was contraband. Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).
Sergeant Esquibel testified that he observed Watson throw a plastic baggie on the
ground, and then he found a plastic baggie in that area that contained methamphetamine.
Sergeant Esquibel stated that he had no doubt that the baggie of methamphetamine on
the ground came from Watson. The jurors viewed the video taken from Sergeant
Esquibel’s bodycam and also viewed videos taken from the other officers. The jurors are
the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be
given to the testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d at 899. We find that the evidence is
sufficient to support Watson’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance. We
overrule the sole issue on appeal.
Outcome: We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: