Background

• Taylor was convicted of delivery of marihuana in an amount more than one-fourth ounce and less than five pounds.
• A confidential informant, J.C., was used to arrange a controlled purchase from Taylor.
• J.C. reported that Taylor agreed to sell a half ounce for $50, and a meeting occurred at a car wash in Hamilton, Texas.
• Officers monitored the transaction, searched J.C. and her car, and placed recording devices; a cigarette package given to J.C. contained marihuana.
• Testing determined the package contained 14.28 grams (0.50 ounces) of marihuana; trial proceedings followed with a jury verdict of guilt.
• Taylor received a two-year sentence in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings; abuse only if clearly wrong)
• Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (abuse of discretion requires what reasonable people could disagree about)
• Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (evidence admissibility standards depend on applicable theory of law)
• De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (upholds admission if correct on any theory of law)
• Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (harmless error considerations when no prejudice)
• Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (related to preservation and preservation standards)
• Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (timeliness of objections and preserving error for review)
• Hollins v. State, 805 S.W.2d 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (timeliness of objections when ground becomes apparent)
• Webb v. State, 480 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (untimely objections render review unavailable)
• Hernandez v. State, 808 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. App.—Waco 1991) (untimely objection on review of hearsay)