Darrell Wayne Sparkman v. State, 09-14-00376-CR

On April 2, 2014, a neighbor observed a toddler (about 2–3 years old) running down a dead-end dirt road in only a diaper and unsupervised for ~12 minutes; no vehicles were seen during that time.
The neighbor called her husband, Polk County detective Billy Duke, who located Darrell Wayne Sparkman in the trailer where the child lived; Sparkman was residing there in exchange for watching the child.
During the resulting investigation officers found drug paraphernalia in plain view, a hollow flashlight on Sparkman’s person with residue, an empty synthetic-marijuana bag in Sparkman’s bedroom (which he admitted was his), and a modified lightbulb containing methamphetamine in a dresser on the porch outside Sparkman’s bedroom.
Sparkman admitted past meth use (recently with a former girlfriend), admitted the synthetic-marijuana bag and pipe were his, denied knowledge of the lightbulb, and declined a second requested drug test.
A jury convicted Sparkman of (1) endangering a child and (2) possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine); enhancement paragraphs were found true. Sparkman appealed both sufficiency rulings.
The court affirmed the meth possession conviction but reversed and rendered an acquittal for child endangerment, finding the evidence did not show the child was placed in imminent danger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for child endangerment (imminence)	State: leaving a 3‑year‑old unsupervised on/near a roadway and neighborhood hazards posed an imminent danger	Sparkman: child was briefly unsupervised on a low‑traffic dead‑end dirt road; no vehicles or immediate hazards observed	Reversed — evidence insufficient; risk was potential, not immediate/imminent
Sufficiency of evidence for possession of methamphetamine (knowing possession)	State: bulbs with meth were found in dresser by Sparkman’s bedroom; multiple affirmative links (presence, paraphernalia, admissions) tie him to drugs	Sparkman: others had access to porch/dresser; lightbulb could belong to someone else	Affirmed — circumstantial/affirmative links sufficiently connected Sparkman to the contraband

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for legal-sufficiency review)
Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (sufficiency review principles)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury in sufficiency review)
Millslagle v. State, 81 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (definition of "imminent" danger under §22.041)
Newsom v. B.B., 306 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (danger must be immediate at the moment of defendant’s conduct)
Herbst v. State, 941 S.W.2d 371 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997) (contrast facts where infant left on busy road supported imminence)
Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (affirmative‑links test for proving possession)
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (possession requires more than fortuitous proximity)
Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (quoted standard that accused’s connection must be more than fortuitous)