Kibble v. State
340 S.W.3d 14
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- No-knock search warrant executed at Kibble's Houston apartment (Feb. 16, 2007) for stolen camera and laptop; drugs found in red bag near sofa (31 crack rocks, 7 bags of powder cocaine).
- Cash ($1,400) found on Kibble during jail search; narcotics dog Bo alerted to money, indicating narcotics odor.
- Kibble claimed non-exclusive possession and lack of knowledge about the drugs; multiple other people present in apartment.
- Defense presented testimony that Kibble did not possess or sell cocaine from the apartment; Kibble claimed money belonged to a friend repaying a loan.
- Jury convicted Kibble of possession with intent to deliver cocaine (4–200 grams); trial court sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment.
- Court addressed sufficiency of the evidence, reliability of narcotics-dog testimony, and prosecutorial jury-argument issues; issues reviewed for harm and harmlessness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability of narcotics-dog evidence | Kibble challenges Bo's alert on money | State argues error harmless due to other probative evidence | Harmless error; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence not enough to prove possession with intent to deliver | Evidence sufficient to prove possession with intent to deliver | Evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt |
| Improper jury argument | Prosecutor attacked defense counsel; misused authority arguments | Arguments within permissible limits or cured by objections | No reversible error; arguments harmless under the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (establishes standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (discusses standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (approved areas of jury argument and preservation rules)
- Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (three-factor harm analysis for improper argument)
- Saldano v. State, 232 S.W.3d 77 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (harmlessness when other probative evidence exists)
- Prather v. State, 238 S.W.3d 399 (Tex.App.-Houston 1st Dist. 2006) (evidence packaging supports intent to deliver)
- James v. State, 264 S.W.3d 215 (Tex.App.-Houston 1st Dist. 2008) (rebuttal to credibility challenges in argument)
- Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (remark-based error analysis including preservation)