Constantino Rios Morales v. State
06-15-00125-CR
Tex. Crim. App.Oct 15, 2015Background
- On August 31, 2014, Cleburne PD stopped a 1999 Chevy Silverado driven and owned by Constantino Rios Morales for equipment/vehicle code violations; Morales was the sole occupant and subsequently arrested.
- During an inventory search of the vehicle’s center console officers found a hidden compartment containing two baggies of methamphetamine (total 37.79 g), digital scales, a glass pipe, a small Ziploc bag, and $483; an iPad Mini in the vehicle was later identified as stolen.
- DPS Crime Lab analyst testified and the lab report and exhibits were admitted; defense later objected to chain of custody and to the lab exhibits after a recess in which the judge asked counsel to research chain-of-custody issues.
- Defense moved to suppress on multiple grounds (warrantless searches, inventory procedure, spoliation), argued Riley-style warrant requirement for the iPad search, and claimed release of the vehicle to a tow service caused spoliation; the trial court denied the motion.
- Jury found Morales guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (>4g <200g) and sentenced him to 45 years and a $10,000 fine; the State argues the evidence and procedures were sufficient and any trial-court remarks or actions were not reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morales) | Held (State's position) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver | Evidence linked Morales to drugs: owner/driver, sole occupant, contraband in hidden console accessible to driver, cash, scales, dealer testimony, admissions, lab confirmation of 37.79 g | Possession not proven (no affirmative link), and intent to deliver not proven | Evidence sufficient: affirmative links and expert testimony support knowledge and intent to deliver; conviction should be affirmed |
| 2. Trial judge remarks during recess (neutrality / comment on weight) | Judge retained plenary power to reconsider interlocutory rulings; remarks occurred outside jury, were precautionary, and aided defense by prompting fuller chain-of-custody testimony | Judge ceased to be neutral and acted as prosecutor by questioning chain of custody, violating due process | No reversible error; defendant failed to preserve the due-process claim and remarks did not prejudice defendant |
| 3. Denial of mistrial based on judge’s remarks | Remarks were outside jury presence, timely objections lacking, and not calculated to benefit State; denial of mistrial within trial court’s discretion | Remarks amounted to impermissible comment on weight of evidence requiring mistrial | Denial of mistrial proper: error not preserved or harmless; no abuse of discretion |
| 4. Suppression issues: inventory arrest, PD procedures, iPad search, and spoliation | Most suppression claims were not preserved; where preserved, State contends (a) arrest and inventory lawful, (b) chain-of-custody met, (c) iPad belonged to a third party (stolen) so defendant lacks standing, (d) spoliation not shown (no loss of material exculpatory evidence or bad faith) | Challenged legality of arrest/inventory, PD procedures, warrantless search of iPad, and argued spoliation from release of truck to tow prevented testing/inspection | Trial court properly denied suppression: many issues not preserved; Morales lacked standing to challenge search of stolen iPad; spoliation elements (materiality, bad faith) not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Jackson sufficiency standard applied in Texas)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (guidance on hypothetically correct jury charge and sufficiency review)
- Guzman v. State, 995 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of review for mixed questions and suppression rulings)
- Martinez v. State, 186 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. App.) (chain-of-custody: show beginning and end; gaps go to weight)
- Matthews v. State, 431 S.W.3d 596 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standing analysis for Fourth Amendment claims)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App.) (possession requires control/custody and knowledge)