344 S.W.3d 454
Tex. App.2011Background
- Haywood, a Dallas PD narcotics detective, secured a warrant to search an auto repair shop for cocaine based on another officer's informant tip.
- Seven plastic-wrapped packages were seized; Haywood later filed a prosecution report claiming field testing with positive cocaine results.
- Laboratory analysis showed only two packages contained cocaine, in amounts not quantifiable; other powder was sheetrock or pool chalk.
- A special prosecutor Hagood investigated Haywood and others; Hagood operated under the Dallas County DA Hill, with DA office involvement.
- Haywood was indicted in 2004 for tampering with physical evidence; he moved to set aside the indictment arguing improper prosecution and in pari materia issues.
- Trial proceeded; the jury convicted Haywood under § 37.09(a)(2); post-trial motions and appeals followed challenging sufficiency, disqualification, and in pari materia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict | Haywood argued no direct evidence of failure to field test; negative proof is insufficient. | Haywood contends the State failed to prove he did not field test the powder. | Evidence sufficient to support conviction under Jackson standard. |
| Disqualification of district attorney | Hill was conflicted; Hagood as special prosecutor required appointment of pro tem. | Mere appearance of conflict not a due-process violation; no prejudice shown. | Trial court did not err; no necessity to appoint an attorney pro tem; indictment valid. |
| In pari materia | Subsection 37.09(a)(2) and 37.10(a) are in pari materia; Haywood should be prosecuted under 37.10(a). | Doctrines of in pari materia do not apply as the statutes have different elements and purposes. | Statutes not in pari materia; conviction upheld under 37.09(a)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applies Jackson v. Virginia standard for sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Mills v. State, 722 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (par i materia conflict when broader vs narrower statute; remedy unavailable)
- Segura v. State, 100 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003) (test for in pari materia: same purpose and elements; harmonize when possible)
- Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (purpose of 37.09; evidence tampering context)
- Kinkle v. State, 902 S.W.2d 187 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995) (tampering with records; purpose of 37.10)