Michael Dwight Ward v. State
06-16-00059-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- In early 2015 Navarro County narcotics detectives stopped Michael Ward’s vehicle in Corsicana after a failure-to-signal turn; passenger Pamela Wilson was also in the car.
- Officers observed furtive movements between Ward and Wilson; Wilson produced drugs from her bra and a crack pipe dropped; Ward admitted he had contraband in his pocket and officers recovered drugs and $715 from him.
- DPS lab testing showed a combined 120 grams of cocaine and 36 grams of PCP between Ward and Wilson; packaging, small-denomination cash, vials, and a notebook suggested distribution-level activity.
- Wilson (co-defendant) gave inconsistent testimony about whether Ward gave her the drugs; she admitted being high and said they intended to "stash" the drugs.
- Ward was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver (cocaine and PCP); each sentence was 54 years, concurrent. On appeal Ward challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) the State’s alleged failure to supplement discovery with jail call/visit recordings, and (3) denial of a continuance to review late-disclosed recordings.
Issues
| Issue | Ward's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver | Most drugs were on Wilson; Ward lacked proof of possession or intent to distribute | Circumstantial and direct evidence (furtive movements, admission, packaging, quantity, cash, officer testimony) supported possession and intent | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for jury to infer Ward’s possession and intent to deliver |
| State’s duty to supplement discovery with jail call/visit recordings | State failed to provide recordings (Aug 20, 2015–Feb 9, 2016) timely; omission prejudiced defense | State produced large portions before trial and supplemented during trial; alleged exculpatory content not shown to exist; Ward was party to calls and could identify relevant portions | No reversible error — either no harmful omission or evidence would have been cumulative |
| Denial of continuance to review supplemental recordings | Needed more time (requested multiple continuances) to review ~150 hours of recordings; denial prejudiced preparation | Court provided limited continuances; further delay risked indefinite postponement; Ward was present on calls and could have directed counsel to relevant portions | No abuse of discretion — denial not reversible because Ward failed to show diligence or actual prejudice |
| Materiality of undisclosed evidence under Brady/Art. 39.14 | Missing recordings could contain Wilson’s statements exculpatory for Ward | No record proof that recordings contained contrary statements beyond Wilson’s equivocal courtroom testimony; materiality requires reasonable probability of different outcome | No Brady/Art. 39.14 violation shown — any undisclosed material would likely be cumulative and not outcome-determinative |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency under Jackson)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (evidence sufficient if any rational trier could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge guides sufficiency review)
- Nhem v. State, 129 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (elements for possession with intent to deliver)
- Moreno v. State, 195 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (factors to infer intent to deliver: quantity, packaging, paraphernalia, cash, user status, location)
- Stone v. State, 583 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (omitted evidence is reversible only if it creates a reasonable doubt that otherwise did not exist)
- Little v. State, 991 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Brady materiality: evidence is material if it might affect the outcome)
- Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for denial of continuance — abuse of discretion)