Williams, George Neal
PD-1551-15
| Tex. App. | Dec 31, 2015Background
- At ~3:30 a.m., officers investigated banging behind a closed business and found Williams sitting behind the building, shirtless and sweating.
- Officer King conducted a pat-down and found a crack pipe and a pocketknife in Williams’s front pants pocket.
- A field swab of the pipe produced a positive presumptive field test for cocaine; the pipe was opaque and residue was not visible to the naked eye.
- A forensic chemist later tested swabs/scrapings and determined the residue was cocaine in a "trace" amount (less than one gram; not weighable or visible).
- Officers testified they did not know whether Williams knew any substance was in the pipe; Williams gave a false name and DOB after arrest.
- Procedural posture: Jury convicted Williams of possession of less than one gram of cocaine; on appeal the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered acquittal for insufficient evidence of knowing possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove Williams knowingly possessed cocaine when the amount was a non‑visible, unweighable trace residue found in a pipe | State: possession of a crack pipe containing cocaine residue plus circumstantial indicators (false ID, presence at suspicious location, sweating) permitted a reasonable inference of knowledge | Williams: residue was not visible, weighable, or measurable, and officers offered no proof he knew the pipe contained cocaine; thus State failed to prove the knowledge element | Court of Appeals: Evidence insufficient to establish guilty knowledge; reversed conviction and rendered judgment of acquittal |
Key Cases Cited
- Joseph v. State, 897 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (visibility of the substance is not an element; other evidence can show knowledge)
- King v. State, 895 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (affirming sufficiency where residue was visible and other facts supported recent use/knowledge)
- Shults v. State, 575 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (when quantity is too small to measure, other evidence is required to prove defendant knew the substance was a controlled substance)
- Jarrett v. State, 818 S.W.2d 847 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991) (upholding conviction based on possession of pipe and actions showing guilty knowledge)
- Garner v. State, 848 S.W.2d 799 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993) (similar rule supporting conviction where other facts show knowledge)