OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Aрpellant was convicted by a jury of delivery of heroin by constructive transfer. The jury assessed punishment at eight years confinement. The Amarillo Court of Appeals reversed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review in order to review the Court of Appeals’ holding that the evidence fails to show a “constructive” transfer of the heroin within thе meaning of the Controlled Substances Act, Tex.Rev. Civ.Stat.Ann. Art. 4476-15, Sec. 1.02(8), which provides in pertinent part:
“ ‘Deliver’ or ‘delivery’ means the actual or constructive transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance ...”
The indictment alleged in pertinent part that:
“On or about the 27th day of August, A.D. 1980 ... GLORIA DAVILA did then and therе knowingly and intentionally deliver by constructive transfer, to Glenn E. Chism a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group I, to-wit: Heroin..."
The following evidеnce presented at trial, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, appears to be undisputed:
“Agent Chism testified that at approximately 11 a.m. on August 27,1980, in the company of an informant unidentified in the record, he arrived in his automobile at a residence at 605 Zenith Avenuе in Lubbock, parking against the curb immediately behind a pickup truck. In their approach to the front door of the residence, thе pair passed directly by one Cosme Tijerina (Cosme), who was standing on the lawn near the curb talking with a man seated behind the steering whеel of the pickup. Entry to the residence being granted, Chism observed appellant seated on the couch with Ascenta Tijerinа in the living room, into which the front door opened.
“The record shows the appellant, having been acquainted with Chism approximаtely two weeks, inquired what the pair wanted, and Chism simply responded ‘four.’ The appellant thereupon absented herself, joined Cosme outside and engaged him in brief conversation, within sight but outside hearing of Chism. The appellant reentered the house and resumed her seat. Then, Chism noticed Cosme walk by the side of the house. “In short order Cosme entered the house, approached Chism and asked еither ‘How many do you want’ or ‘What do you want.’ Chism repeated his request for ‘four,’ and Cosme, having in his hand precisely four party balloons, tiеd at the opening, placed them in Chism’s hand, in exchange for Chism’s tender to him of *724 $120.00. 1 Chism and the informant then departed, rendezvousing with other law enforcement officers who had been conducting surveillance of the residence. Chism noted that he had, on prior occasions, seen the appellant at the residence. 2 “Officer Robinson, assigned by the Lubbock police department to a ‘DEA task force,’ testified that on the date in question he was ‘on surveillance’ of the residence from a vantage point approximately two blocks distant. Robinson further stated that Cosme walked from the point where he had been standing to a park behind the house, approached a sofa, bent over and ‘did something.’ Cosme then proceeded inside the residence.”
Appellant was not сharged with being a party to the actual transfer of the heroin which took place when Cosme delivered it to Chism. See Y.T.C.A. Penal Cоde, Secs. 7.01, 7.02. The indictment alleged that appellant “constructively” transferred the narcotic to Chism and thus the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the State was required to prove a constructive transfer. The Court of Appeals relied on our оpinion in
Rasmussen v. State,
In
Rasmussen
we noted that the term “constructive transfer” hаd not been previously defined by this Court and we looked to other jurisdictions which had adopted similar statutes from the Uniform Controlled Substanсes Act for guidance. We followed other jurisdictions and interpreted a constructive transfer to be the transfer of a controlled substance either belonging to the defendant or under his direct or indirect control, by some other person or manner at the instаnce or direction of the defendant.
Following Rasmussen, the Court of Appeals held:
“In the present case, the evidence fails to establish that the controlled substance in question belonged to appellant, or that prior to its delivery by Cosme, it was under her direct or indirect control. The evidencе equally fails to establish that Cosme was acting as appellant’s agent or under her direction. The only facts linking appellant tо the offense charged are that she was on the scene and spoke to Cosme after Chism told her what he wanted and beforе Cosme made the delivery. However, those facts do not satisfactorily evidence either her ownership or control of the contraband, particularly since any control of the premises by her was negated, and they do no more than raise a suspiсion that Cosme was either her agent or acting under her direction.”
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The evidence presented in the instant case fails to show that appellant had direct or indirect control of the contraband prior to its delivery, and does not show that the contraband was delivered by Cosme at the instance or direction of appellant. At most the еvidence shows that appellant merely relayed Chism’s offer to buy to her husband Cosme. Cosme negotiated both the quantity and the price before making the delivery. Appellant made no response when Chism offered to buy “four.” *725 The fact that she might have understood whаt he meant by his cryptic offer is no proof that the contraband was under her direct or indirect control prior to its delivery by Cosmе to Chism. Furthermore, appellant’s act in merely relaying an offer from buyer to seller is not sufficient to prove that the seller aсted at the “instance or direction” of the appellant. There is no proof that appellant had any control ovеr Cosme’s actions.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Notes
. Although Cosme had four balloons in one hand which he delivered to Chism, Chism admitted that Cosme “could have had some in his other hand.” The balloons given to Chism contained heroin.
. Testimony heard outside the presence of the jury revealed that neither appellant nor Cosme, her common-law husband, lived at the residence, which belonged to Cosme’s brother, Cruz Tijerina and his wife Ascenta.
.A сonstructive transfer can take place other than through a live intermediary. In State v. Guyott, supra, a constructive transfer occurred when the defendant negotiated a narcotics transaction with an undercover officer and told the officer to pick up the narcotics himself from their hidden location in a wastebasket