Simmons, Bobby v. State, PD-0069-15

Officers executed a search warrant at 7353 Chaucer Place after controlled buys confirmed cocaine distribution from the residence.
Five persons were present; Simmons was located in the master bedroom where officers found drugs, drug paraphernalia, men’s clothing, two handguns (one under the bed, one in a safe), ammunition, and identification cards.
A temporary ID bearing Simmons’s name was found under the handgun beneath the bed; Simmons’s fingerprints were lifted from a scale in the room; a government document listed the residence as Simmons’s address.
Simmons was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver cocaine (60 years) and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (5 years + fine); he appealed the firearm possession conviction and trial-court evidentiary rulings.
The court of appeals affirmed: it found the evidence legally sufficient to affirmatively link Simmons to the firearms and held any error from improper cross-examination was non-constitutional or harmless; Simmons failed to preserve a Confrontation Clause claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Simmons)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon	Knowledge that guns existed in the residence is not enough; Simmons did not exercise care, custody, control, or management of the firearms	Evidence (residence listed as his address, presence in master bedroom, men’s clothes, fingerprints on scale, temporary ID under gun, guns within reach and near drugs) affirmatively links Simmons to the guns	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to support knowing possession under §46.04(a)(1)
Trial-court abuse: improper cross-examination assuming facts not in evidence and Confrontation Clause violation	Prosecutor’s questions improperly injected alleged out-of-court statements and facts not in evidence; these prejudiced the jury and violated confrontation rights	Any improper questioning was harmless in light of other linking evidence; Simmons did not contemporaneously object on Confrontation Clause grounds, so the constitutional claim is waived	Affirmed — any non-constitutional error was harmless; Confrontation Clause claim not preserved for appeal

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for legal sufficiency of evidence)
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App.) (jury as exclusive judge of credibility and weight)
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App.) (requirement of affirmative links when no exclusive control)
Smith v. State, 176 S.W.3d 907 (Tex. App.—Dallas) (nonexclusive list of affirmative-link factors)
Everett v. State, 707 S.W.2d 638 (Tex. Crim. App.) (improper argument/inviting speculation can prejudice jury)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (prosecutorial assertions of personal knowledge can unduly influence juries)
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (court’s duty to ensure fair trial and reliance on counsel to protect client interests)