George Neal Williams v. State
14-14-00700-CR
| Tex. | Oct 29, 2015Background
- Early-morning police responded to Midtown Spa and found Williams sitting behind the building by an air-conditioner, shirtless and sweating.
- Officer King patted Williams and recovered a pocketknife and a crack pipe from his front pants pocket.
- A field swab of the pipe reacted positively for cocaine; laboratory testing later identified a trace (unweighable, not visible) residue of cocaine on the pipe.
- Officers testified they did not know whether Williams knew anything was inside the pipe or whether he had recently used it; there was no other evidence of drug use or knowledge.
- At trial the court denied Williams’s motion for instructed verdict; the jury convicted him of possession of less than one gram of cocaine.
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment of acquittal, concluding the State failed to prove Williams knowingly possessed cocaine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports a finding that Williams knowingly possessed cocaine | Possession of a crack pipe plus a field test and lab confirmation of cocaine residue permit a reasonable inference of knowledge | Residue was trace/unmeasurable and not visible; no evidence Williams knew pipe contained drugs or had recently used it; mere possession insufficient | Reversed and rendered: evidence insufficient to prove knowing possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury on credibility and weight)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (resolving conflicts in evidence in favor of verdict)
- King v. State, 895 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that additional evidence beyond mere possession may establish knowledge when substance is unmeasurable)
- Shults v. State, 575 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (when quantity is unmeasurable, State must present evidence beyond possession to prove knowledge)
- Joseph v. State, 897 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (contextual facts such as location and manner of possession can support knowledge)
- Caballero v. State, 881 S.W.2d 745 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994) (visible/measurable cocaine supports knowledge)
- Chavez v. State, 768 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989) (visible measurable quantity in defendant's pocket supported conviction)