*1 agreed to permit, assist KRTS obtain its injunction here is more limited than the
order in French. point
We overrule of error three. Adequate remedy
4. at law four, Henderson temporary injunc
contends issuance of the improper
tion was because KRTS had an
adequate remedy at law in a suit for dam
ages.
In the non-competition assistance and
agreement, parties agreed
KRTS’s:
remedy at law for breach of this
Agreement inadequate would be agrees and consents that
[Henderson]
temporary permanent injunctive relief granted
may be necessity ... without
proof damage. of actual Henderson, hold by agreement,
stipulated that injunctive KRTS could seek
relief without the necessity proof damages.
actual
We overrule of error four. Jr., Appellant,
Robert CAMPBELL Texas, Appellee.
The STATE of
No. A14-90-00928-CR. Texas, Appeals
Court of (14th Dist.). Reed, Houston, appellant. James R. for Jan. 1992. Hartmann, Houston, appel- Calvin A. Rehearing Denied March lee. BROWN, C.J.,
Before J. CURTISS CANNON, MURPHY and JJ. OPINION CANNON, Justice.
Appellant
plea
guilty
entered
of not
fore the court to the offense of
*2
777
sured,
to establish
it is sufficient
substance, namely cocaine.
of a controlled
sub
Safety
it
a controlled
knew was
481.- defendant
§
Ann.
&
Code
Tex.Health
623,
State, 658 S.W.2d
v.
115(b).
and the court
stance. Johnson
He was convicted
State,
(Tex.Crim.App.1983);
v.
Thomas
punishment
imprisonment
at
627
assessed
786,
(Tex.App.
789
render.
eight years. We reverse and
807 S.W.2d
— Houston
ref’d).
1991, pet.
Dist.]
[1st
officer,
22, 1990,
police
June
On
Tewelet,
a
dispatch
received a
R.P.
only evidence before
The
2,
at 3802 Lila #
in Har-
family disturbance
and
stipulations of evidence
was
loca-
County. Upon his arrival at that
ris
testimony
analysis. There is no
the lab
tion,
appellant sit-
Tewelet found
Officer
arresting officer or the chemist
drinking alcohol.
ting outside the residence
in the match
residue contained
the cocaine
briefly
talked
with
The officer
to the naked
See
was visible
box
wife,
being
complained law
common
(Tex.
State, 818
847
S.W.2d
Jarrett v.
observing appellant, Offi-
After
assaulted.
Dist.],
Appel
App.
[1st
— Houston
public
him for
decided to arrest
cer Tewelet
designated as
stipulation of evidence
lant’s
During
pat-down
a
search
intoxication.
chem
2 states that the
Exhibit No.
State’s
a
appellant, Officer Tewelet discovered
case and
ist “examined
pants
front
left
0.6 milli
weighing
cocaine
identified it as
tested
pocket. The matchbox was later
added). The
(Emphasis
State
grams.”
contain 0.6
an HPD chemist and found to
residue must have been
contends
The indictment al-
milligrams of cocaine.
to exam
chemist to be able
for the
visible
“intentionally and
leges
However,
nothing in the
is
it.
ine
knowingly possessed
controlled sub-
examined
that the chemist
record to show
stance, namely,
weighing
cocaine
less than
Pel
See
the residue without
grams
aggregate weight including
28
226,
State,
298
164 Tex.Crim.
ham v.
any
and dilutants.”
adulterants
171,
(1957).
the record is
173
That
S.W.2d
error,
microscope
con-
was used
his sole
silent as to whether
assertion,
not, contrary
that there is insufficient evidence
to the State’s
tends
does
knowingly possessed
that he
residue was visible.
show
mean that
present
in the
evidence
because there was no visible cocaine
State has
burden
possessed
he
arrested.
links the accused to
affirmatively
when
such
a manner and to
in such
contraband
reviewing the
The standard for
may
reasonable inference
extent that a
an
whether,
is
af
evidence
the contra
accused knew of
arise that the
light
in the
most
ter
evidence
he or she exer
and that
existence
band’s
prosecution,
rational
State, 635
Rodriguez v.
control of it.
cised
the essential
trier of fact could have found
Op.]
552,
(Tex.Crim.App.
553
S.W.2d
[Panel
beyond
offense
a reason
elements of the
carry
1982). Here,
has failed to
the State
443
Virginia,
v.
U.S.
able doubt. Jackson
its burden.
2789,
307, 319,
2781,
61 L.Ed.2d
99 S.Ct.
holding in
of our
Chavez
(1979).
charged
are aware
560
Where an accused is
State,
(Tex.App
MURPHY, Justice, dissenting. aid of surable without the a more elaborate I respectfully must re- dissent from the analysis spectrophotometer. under a Id. my versal of conviction. In arresting Much like the Chavez the opinion, there was sufficient evidence to in suspicious officer this instance was support jury’s the that the determination what he in saw the matchbox and appellant knowingly possessed a controlled had it tested for cocaine residue. The test substance. cocaine, yielded milligrams larger Appellant’s alleges sole than in was found Chavez. As sup insufficient evidence to by the majority, noted standard for “[t]he port jury’s the match conclusion the reviewing of the evidence is box contained a sufficient amount of co whether, after caine to be measurable as well as detecta light most to ble by eye the naked and therefore know any rational trier of fact could have found ingly possessed. See, e.g., Johnson v. the essential elements the offense be- (Tex.Crim.App. yond a reasonable doubt.” In of the majority obscures the facts of facts, clearly rational trier fact could they case omission. While state arresting have found that the officer who by police was searched to the HPD took chemist for officer found the matchbox which was something analysis must have seen to raise residue, majori later tested for cocaine suspicion his that cocaine residue was ty neglects recognize to present. officer must have seen some residue in the above, I For the stated would reasons suspi order have enough to affirm the of the conviction cion to order analysis. lab sup- cause there is sufficient evidence to to majority’s Essential ultimate con- port jury’s finding explicit clusion fact that there was no seen, measured, be residue was able to statement officer or the knowing inference therefore raise the examining they chemist to were able possession. see eyes. the residue with their naked addition, majority places emphasis on examining
the failure of the chemist to
testify or seen whether not the cocaine was eye.
under a the naked uncertainty
The majority deems this only
mean that the cocaine was observable microscope;
under a this omission just easily interpreted sup-
could as be
port the conclusion that cocaine was
seen the naked
Further, the majority chooses to abandon holding
our earlier Chavez State.