Richard Lee Rabb v. State
387 S.W.3d 67
Tex. App.2012Background
- Rabb was convicted by bench trial of a third-degree felony tampering with physical evidence and sentenced to six years in TDCJ.
- The State amended the indictment to allege Rabb knowing an investigation was in progress and knowingly destroyed a plastic baggie containing pills to impair its availability as evidence.
- At Wal-Mart in Rockwall, Reynolds was detained for attempted theft; a man matching Reynolds’s description, later identified as Rabb, was stopped nearby.
- A store employee observed Rabb with a baggie; during a search, Rabb placed the baggie in his mouth and swallowed it amid a struggle with officers; the baggie was never recovered.
- The trial court convicted Rabb; on appeal, Rabb challenged sufficiency of the evidence for destruction and for knowledge of the investigation.
- The court held the first issue dispositive and reversed, rendering a judgment of acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Rabb destroyed the baggie | State: swallowing constituted destruction or at least concealment of the baggie. | Rabb: only concealed the baggie; not destroyed, no identity/recognizability loss. | Evidence insufficient; acquittal on destruction element. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 270 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (distinguishes destroy from alter/conceal; destruction means ruined or unrecognizable)
- Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (clarifies charging choices when offense elements have alternatives)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (establishes standard for sufficiency with hypothetically correct charge)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (permits reasonable inferences; sufficiency allowed when facts support)