Yago Santain Fountain v. State, 12-15-00073-CR

Appellant Yago Fountain was tried for possession of over eight pounds of marijuana found concealed under the hood of a borrowed Chevrolet Suburban; a jury convicted him and assessed 10 years and a $10,000 fine.
At trial the State presented evidence that Fountain and the driver (Mitchell) traveled together from Louisiana to Dallas and back, never separated, and appeared aware and nervous when the vehicle was stopped.
Trooper Martin discovered the marijuana in the engine compartment; neither appellant nor driver had other contraband, narcotics paraphernalia, or incriminating statements recorded at the scene.
The jury heard evidence suggesting possible flight (unbuckling, open door) and observed the two men interacting when the hood was checked.
On appeal the court concluded the evidence was sufficient to show Fountain knew about the marijuana but not sufficient to show he exercised care, custody, control, or management over it, and therefore ordered acquittal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession (care, custody, control)	State: affirmative links (presence, proximity, joint travel, nervousness, potential flight, conversation while hood opened) permit a rational jury to infer joint control or possession.	Fountain: as passenger with no direct control, no statements, no paraphernalia, and no observed transaction, evidence insufficient to prove he exercised control over the contraband.	Appellate court held evidence insufficient to establish Fountain exercised care, custody, control, or management and ordered acquittal.
Whether appellate review improperly reweighed evidence	State: court should defer to jury and resolve conflicts in testimony; absence of certain links is not evidence of innocence and same missing links existed for driver.	Fountain: appellate court applied Jackson/Brooks standard and found gaps in affirmative links connecting Fountain to control.	Appellate court effectively concluded the total circumstantial proof did not permit a rational juror to find possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (sets out affirmative-links framework for proving possession)
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (knowledge element in possession prosecutions)
Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (circumstantial evidence may prove knowing possession)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standards for reviewing legal sufficiency; defer to factfinder on credibility)
Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (appellate courts must not substitute their judgment for the jury on credibility/weight)
Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Jackson standard discussed)
Hernandez v. State, 538 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (absence of affirmative links is not affirmative evidence of innocence)