Acosta, Genaro Galvan Jr., PD-0967-15

Officers stopped Genaro Acosta for speeding and noticed he was unusually nervous, talkative, and fidgety; he and his wife gave inconsistent answers when interviewed separately.
Acosta was driving a borrowed car; only one key was on the key ring and he carried $300 despite being unemployed.
With consent, officers searched the vehicle and found good-luck herbs, a Santa Muerte charm in his wife’s purse, and an unusually clean spare tire with oil and tooling marks.
Officers cut open the spare tire and discovered 24.48 pounds of marijuana.
Acosta made an inculpatory statement in Spanish that was translated in differing ways (suggesting he would “take the fall” or “give myself up if you don’t arrest my family”).
A jury convicted Acosta of possession (more than 5 but ≤50 pounds); the court of appeals reversed for insufficient evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeals reinstated the conviction.

Issue	State's Argument	Acosta's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence (including circumstantial evidence) sufficed to prove Acosta exercised control/management/care over the marijuana and knew it was contraband	Cumulative circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences (nervous behavior, inconsistent statements, single key, borrowed car, cash, charms/herbs, clean/oiled spare with tooling marks, incriminating statement) create affirmative links supporting knowing possession	Because the car was borrowed and Acosta lacked exclusive possession, the State needed stronger affirmative links; several kinds of allegedly missing direct evidence undermine sufficiency	The Court held the cumulative evidence and reasonable inferences were sufficient to establish affirmative links and knew possession; conviction reinstated
Whether the court of appeals applied the correct sufficiency standard	The correct standard reviews all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and resolves conflicts in favor of the verdict; focus on present evidence and inferences, not on what evidence is missing	The court of appeals criticized the record for lacking certain affirmative-link facts and effectively performed a divide-and-conquer analysis	The Court rejected the court of appeals’ divide-and-conquer and missing-evidence focus, reaffirming that sufficiency examines the record as a whole under Jackson v. Virginia

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sets the federal legal-sufficiency standard: view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (elements for possession: control/management/care and knowledge)
Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (sufficiency review requires evaluating the evidence as a whole, not piecemeal)