602 S.W.3d 573
Tex. Crim. App.2020Background
- On July 1, 2012, Karl Stahmann turned left across Hwy. 46 and was broadsided in an accident; he then walked to a nearby wire game fence and threw a prescription promethazine pill bottle over it.
- Two bystanders (Ballard and Freeman) saw him throw the bottle, watched where it landed (about 2–3 feet past the fence on top of the grass), and immediately told arriving deputy Koepp its location.
- Koepp saw the bottle in daylight and it was readily visible; one officer even attempted to retrieve it through the fence with an asp.
- Stahmann was indicted and convicted by a jury for tampering with physical evidence (third-degree felony), sentenced to 10 years (suspended) and placed on community supervision; the jury had been charged on tampering and attempted tampering.
- The court of appeals found the evidence insufficient to prove tampering and reformed the conviction to attempted tampering (state-jail felony); the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stahmann) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether moving/throwing the bottle constitutes "alter" under § 37.09 | "Alter" includes changing location; moving an item can alter its character or availability | Mere movement of the bottle did not change or modify the bottle itself | Movement alone is not "alter"; "alter" means change or modification of the thing itself |
| Whether throwing the bottle over the fence constituted "conceal" from law enforcement | Concealment occurs if the defendant removes item from sight or notice of law enforcement, even temporarily | The bottle was not concealed from law enforcement: bystanders watched it and directed the deputy to it; it remained in plain view | No concealment as to law enforcement where witnesses immediately identified and deputy clearly saw the bottle in daylight |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction for tampering with physical evidence (greater offense) | The facts permit inference of intent to impair availability; moving/throwing constituted tampering | Evidence insufficient because bottle was not altered or concealed as required | Evidence insufficient to prove tampering; Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed court of appeals' judgment (which reformed conviction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (inferences must be supported by evidence; speculation insufficient for conviction)
- Campbell v. State, 426 S.W.3d 780 (conviction will be sustained if evidence supports any theory submitted in the jury charge)
- Harris v. State, 359 S.W.3d 625 (statutory construction principles: read words in context and give effect to each term)
- Carnley v. State, 366 S.W.3d 830 (discussed in argument about whether moving an object can be treated as alteration)
- Ramos v. State, 351 S.W.3d 913 (distinguished: held a corpse may be "altered" when moved and its physical state changed)