Benjamin Robert Cain, III v. State
501 S.W.3d 172
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Confidential informant Dennis Boyd, wearing a hidden camera, purchased pills from Benjamin Robert Cain, III; Boyd later handed a plastic bag with pills to Sgt. Steve Ashmore.
- Boyd died before trial; the video and Ashmore’s testimony were used at trial to prove the purchase and transfer.
- The pills were submitted to the Texas DPS lab; testing showed 19.83 grams containing dihydrocodeine (hydrocodone), a Penalty Group 3 substance.
- Cain was convicted of delivery of less than 28 grams of a Penalty Group 3 controlled substance and sentenced to 24 months and a $5,000 fine.
- On appeal Cain challenged (1) authentication of the video, (2) chain of custody of the drugs, (3) Confrontation Clause grounds, and (4) sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Cain's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of video | Video not properly authenticated under Tex. R. Evid. 901 because informant (videographer) was unavailable | Sgt. Ashmore sponsored the video, testified it was fair, accurate, unaltered, and that recording system worked | Video sufficiently authenticated |
| Chain of custody of drugs | Breaks in chain; possible substitution or tampering | Officer searched Boyd/vehicle pre-buy; video shows transfer; officer delivered sealed package to DPS; lab seal intact at trial | Chain sufficiently shown; admissible absent tampering evidence |
| Confrontation Clause | Unavailable informant’s statements via video violate Confrontation Clause | Officer testified to events and sponsored video (as in Watson) | Not considered—claim insufficiently briefed under Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for delivery | Without informant testimony, State lacked direct proof of delivery | Video, officer testimony, and lab results allowed jury to infer delivery beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence sufficient to support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (photograph/video authentication requires proof images reflect reality)
- Watson v. State, 421 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (officer sponsoring informant video can address Confrontation Clause/authentication)
- Bass v. State, 830 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (chain of custody may be proved with circumstantial evidence)
- Martinez v. State, 186 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (showing start and end of chain, especially where it ends at a lab, meets authentication)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (absent evidence of tampering, chain problems do not bar admissibility)