400 S.W.3d 199
Tex. App.2013Background
- Lara was convicted of possession of marijuana, enhanced, and sentenced to six years in prison.
- Officers investigated a tip that marijuana was being used, sold, and grown by Clark Lara at a specified property; Lara was found inside a residence there.
- A search of the residence yielded drug paraphernalia and marijuana; one officer smelled marijuana inside.
- Nancy Archer, Lara’s girlfriend, testified she possessed the marijuana and did not know Lara was inside the residence.
- An assistant district attorney testified Lara stated at a bond hearing, “They took my marijuana” and “I smoke marijuana, that’s why I had it.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mere presence justifies jury instruction | Lara argues mere presence is a defensive issue requiring instruction. | State contends presence alone does not negate an element of possession. | No, absence of instruction affirmed; instruction not entitled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (mere presence insufficient to prove possession)
- Green v. State, 566 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (affirmative defensive instruction improper when negating essential element)
- Goodrich v. State, 156 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (affirmative submission of defensive issue not error)
- Williams v. State, 906 S.W.2d 58 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995) (mere presence issue addressed in appellate context)
- Golden v. State, 851 S.W.2d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (accomplice testimony corroboration—not applicable here)