Matthew Jarrett Lee v. State, 03-15-00112-CR

On December 8, 2013, deputies stopped a vehicle for an obstructed/expired temporary dealer plate; four occupants: driver, front passenger (with an infant), appellant (rear seat behind driver), and another adult.
Deputies obtained the driver’s consent to search the vehicle; during the search marijuana was discovered on the rear passenger floorboard beneath the infant carrier, closest to and within arm’s reach of appellant.
Appellant was the only adult who exhibited marked nervousness (repeated unprompted statements like “I don’t want no trouble,” visible shaking) and had bloodshot/glassy eyes; deputies monitored the front passenger and testified she did not reach toward the back seat.
Deputies arrested appellant for possession of marijuana under two ounces; he was tried by jury, found guilty, and placed on probated sentence with fines and license suspension.
The State appealed (briefed here) on the sole issue whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s possession verdict.

Issue	State's Argument	Appellant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction for possession of marijuana?	The State: cumulative affirmative links (presence during search, plain view/proximity to the marijuana, symptoms of use, pronounced nervousness/conduct showing consciousness of guilt) were sufficient for a rational jury to find actual or constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.	Appellant: evidence shows only mere proximity; passenger or driver could have placed the drug; several Evans linking factors are absent, so the State failed to prove knowing possession.	The State asks the court to affirm: a rational factfinder could reasonably infer appellant’s care, custody, control, or management of the marijuana based on the totality of links.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (enumerates non-exclusive list of factors that can link an accused to contraband; factors may be considered singly or in combination)
Ferguson v. State, 313 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (proximity plus additional links such as nervousness and signs of intoxication can support possession conviction)
Allen v. State, 249 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. App.—Austin [3rd Dist.] 2011) (distinguishable—mere proximity in multiroom residence where drugs were secreted was insufficient to prove knowing possession)
Glass v. State, 681 S.W.2d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (nervousness around police is not dispositive but may be probative of consciousness of guilt)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in sufficiency review)
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (discusses links required to prove constructive possession)
Gant v. State, 116 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003) (emphasizes logical force of linking factors over their sheer number)
Kiffe v. State, 361 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (restates standard of review for legal sufficiency in Texas criminal cases)