Juan Torres Rodriguez v. State, 13-15-00287-CR

On Sept. 3, 2012, officers contacted Juan Torres Rodriguez at Casa de Oro Apartments; Officer Putnam observed a small clear plastic bag in Rodriguez’s right hand, saw it passed to the left hand, and testified Rodriguez clenched and ground his fist.
Officers pried open Rodriguez’s hand and recovered a small zip‑top bag later lab‑tested as .19 grams of cocaine.
Indictment charged two counts: (1) possession of cocaine (state jail felony) and (2) tampering with physical evidence (third‑degree felony), alleging conjunctively that Rodriguez concealed or attempted to destroy the baggie with intent to impair its availability as evidence.
Defense argued officers planted the cocaine and that Rodriguez reasonably believed trespass charges against him had been dismissed; defense did not pursue a formal suppression ruling at trial and did not object to the jury charge.
The jury convicted on both counts; appellant contends tampering conviction is legally insufficient because the baggie remained in plain view, Rodriguez lacked knowledge an investigation was in progress, and lacked intent to impair availability or verity of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction for tampering with physical evidence	State relied on officers’ testimony that Rodriguez moved the bag, clenched and ground his fist, and thus concealed/attempted to destroy evidence with intent to impair its availability.	Rodriguez argues the bag remained in plain view at all times; he made no overt attempt to hide, throw, swallow, or otherwise place the item out of sight; he did not know an investigation was in progress and lacked intent to impair evidence.	Trial court: jury convicted on tampering; on appeal Rodriguez challenges sufficiency and seeks reversal (appellate decision on the challenge not contained in this brief).

Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (rules for raising jury‑charge error and harm analysis)
Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (a charge may be given in the disjunctive though indictment is conjunctive)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate deference to juries on credibility and factual weight)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (use of a hypothetically correct jury charge in sufficiency review)
Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (consider all record evidence in sufficiency review)
Rotenberry v. State, 245 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (meaning of "conceal" and when evidence is exposed to officer’s view)
Thornton v. State, 377 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012) (tampering not proven where contraband remained in officer’s sight and defendant did not take affirmative concealment steps)
Rabb v. State, 434 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (intent to impair must be proven; impairment or inferable destruction required)
Stewart v. State, 240 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discusses the required mental state for tampering)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (standards for when a reasonable person is seized and awareness of investigation)