Robert Dale Hines v. State
535 S.W.3d 102
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Robert Dale Hines was indicted on three counts: tampering with evidence by concealment (Pos. Code §37.09), possession of >1g but <4g methamphetamine (Health & Safety §481.115), and evading arrest; the evading count was dismissed and not tried.
- Jury found Hines guilty of tampering and possession; after a true enhancement plea he received concurrent 20-year sentences on each count.
- Stop and arrest: officers observed Hines driving; he exited and walked away, denied driving, was arrested, and marihuana was found on his person and in the vehicle.
- Police found >2 grams meth under the driver’s seat; about 0.21 g meth was later recovered from the patrol car backseat after Hines was transported to jail; video showed Hines moving and reaching into his pockets while handcuffed in the backseat and photographs showed scattered meth and an empty baggie.
- Hines argued (1) insufficient evidence for tampering by concealment, (2) insufficient evidence linking him to the larger meth, (3) trial court erred in denying a for-cause challenge to juror Armstrong for Fifth Amendment bias, and (4) the jury charge erroneously instructed on alter/destroy in addition to conceal (not in indictment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for tampering by concealment | Hines: evidence only showed exposure or attempted destruction/alteration, not concealment as charged; indictment alleged only concealment | State: video and photos show Hines scattered meth under his body so officers did not see it until after removal — fits concealment | Court: Affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove concealment because meth was hidden under Hines and not noticed until after he was removed |
| Sufficiency of evidence linking Hines to >1g methamphetamine | Hines: drugs were under seat of another’s vehicle and links (affirmative links) are inadequate | State: officers saw Hines driving, marihuana on his person, small meth in backseat/patrol car, furtive gestures on video, and consciousness of guilt (denials, flight) | Court: Affirmed — multiple nonexclusive Evans factors linked Hines to the methamphetamine |
| Denial of challenge for cause to veniremember Armstrong | Hines: Armstrong said he tends to view not-testifying as guilt, so he was biased and should be excused for cause | State: after the court instructed on law Armstrong said he could follow instruction; his answers were not fixed bias | Court: Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; deference due where responses are vacillating and court observed demeanor |
| Jury charge included alter/destroy though indictment alleged only conceal | Hines: charge authorized theories not in indictment and defense suffered egregious harm; defense preserved by failing to object earlier to charge divergence | State: evidence and arguments focused on concealment; inclusion of alternatives was incidental and did not cause actual harm | Court: Error found in charge but not reversible — no egregious harm under Almanza; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (deference to trial court on for-cause challenges where answers vacillate)
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (list of nonexclusive affirmative-link factors for possession)
- Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (analysis of when discarding contraband supports tampering/attempted concealment)
- Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (sufficiency measured against indictment allegations)
- Williams v. State, 270 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation and elements of tampering with evidence)