Marion Hoover Small v. State, 01-15-01082-CR

Appellant Marion Hoover Small was arrested February 28, 2015 for public intoxication after officers observed staggering, inability to answer simple questions, and smelled alcohol and PCP.
A pat-down at the scene found nothing; Appellant resisted and required three officers to place him into a patrol car.
At the station, an inventory search of Appellant’s belongings revealed a mouthwash bottle in his breast pocket containing a clear pale-yellow liquid that later tested positive for phencyclidine (PCP).
When the officer removed the bottle, Appellant unprompted said, “That’s not mine.”
Appellant was indicted for possession of at least 4 grams but less than 200 grams of PCP; a jury convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
On appeal, Appellant challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence to prove knowing possession, and (2) the State’s alleged failure to disclose material evidence post-conviction; the court considered preservation and legal standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Small)	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence prove knowing possession of PCP?	The bottle with >20 grams of PCP was in Appellant’s shirt pocket, establishing control and knowledge; jury could infer knowing possession.	Bottle wasn’t found at initial pat-down and could have been dislodged during the struggle, creating reasonable doubt about possession.	Affirmed — evidence sufficient: drugs were measurable and found in pocket; jury rationally rejected dislodgement theory.
Suppression/Brady-type disclosure: Did State fail to turn over material evidence?	(Implicit) No reversible suppression; issue not preserved for appeal.	State failed to disclose material evidence that could affect guilt/innocence; raised after conviction.	Overruled — issue not preserved and the alleged evidence is not in the record.

Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App.) (articulating sufficiency standard as applied in Texas appellate review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishing the standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
King v. State, 895 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Crim. App.) (elements required to prove knowing possession: control and knowledge)
Victor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. App.) (measurable, visible controlled substances support inference of knowledge)
Akins v. State, 202 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. App.) (possession in defendant’s pocket supports inference of control/possession)
Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. Crim. App.) (issues must be presented to trial court within applicable time to preserve appellate review)