Kristopher Donald Mixon v. State
07-15-00094-CR
Tex.Aug 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Kristopher Mixon was indicted for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) 4–<200 grams; trial court found him guilty after jury trial and punishment was assessed by the court at 8 years’ confinement.
- Evidence showed methamphetamine, paraphernalia, scales, syringes, and glassware found in both the residence at 7002 Imperial and a detached shed; Mixon was the primary resident and had access to the shed.
- A white box containing drug paraphernalia and a baggie believed to contain methamphetamine was recovered during a consensual search of the residence with Mixon’s consent to search the home and the shed.
- The state introduced testimony that Mixon acknowledged methamphetamine use and admitted to drug use; Mixon provided a key to the locked shed where the methamphetamine was found.
- Mixon challenged two aspects on appeal: (1) the trial court’s use of an Allen charge after a deadlock, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence linking Mixon to the methamphetamine.
- The Court of Appeals held that the Allen charge was non-coercive and properly within the trial court’s discretion, and that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allen charge after deadlock was proper | Mixon argues the Allen charge was coercive and violated rights. | State contends Allen charge was non-coercive and properly administered. | Allen charge non-coercive; error preservation deficient; no reversible error. |
| Sufficiency of evidence linking Mixon to methamphetamine | Mixon claims insufficient direct links to prove possession. | State asserts multiple affirmative links show knowing possession, individually or jointly. | Evidence legally sufficient to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (Allen-charge framework and non-coercive standard referenced)
- Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (standard for reviewing evidence and sufficiency)
- Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (Allen charge and preservation considerations)
- Howard v. State, 941 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (scope of the Allen charge and non-coercive analysis)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (sufficiency and weighing of circumstantial evidence)
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013) (affirmative-links framework in possession cases)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (affirmative-links factors for possession)