*1 regard this last comment of the directly Though not With both theories. under preserve helpful failed to judge, is point, Vasquez’ rationale trial court’s er- he failed to determining appellate the trial review because whether 52(a). that to the extent harmed object. rors TEX.R.APP.P. required. is reversal of error com Appellant’s point last dispute intoxilyz- does not Appellant minute limitation of the fifteen plains of alone is suf- That evidence er test results. argument. side for final each time allotted appellant’s conviction for ficient to sustain regu discretion court’s have broad Trial intoxicated because it was driving while jury argument. lating duration of alcohol concen- he had an uncontroverted (Tex.App Moya v. improperly than 0.10. of more tration .—San Antonio im- and the trial court’s excluded evidence case, eight in this witnesses were con- in front proper comments appellant’s sobrie only contested issue was impeachment of the witness cerned the opinion that there was ty. We are turn, which, appearance, allotting fifteen of discretion no abuse of whether he question do with had to side. minutes to each physical and use of his the normal the trial court af- conclude, therefore, faculties. We mental firmed. no contri- errors made the trial court’s that TEX.R. appellant’s conviction. bution 81(b)(2).
APP.P. in the state- location
Lastly, at another following com- facts, we find
ment of
ments: you arrived at the
MR. WALKER:
scene, began your conversation you Julie; that correct? FLORES, Appellant, A. make sure she wanted to A: Yes. We okay. Texas, Appellee. The STATE verbally you, Q: state And did she conversation, you initiated No. 04-87-00193-CR. in- Mr. Jackson opinion Appeals toxicated? Antonio. No, did not. A: she in time did Q: point did—at what opinion to verbally express she
you? noticed it Myself my
A: us, agreed with
right away, and she Mr. her we believed
and we told intoxicated.
Jackson was communi-
Q: the verbal you So initiated
cation and not her? Your [prosecutor]:
MR. BRANDON again
Honor, object about going to I’m
the relevance—
THE COURT: Sustained. repetition. —and the BRANDON:
MR. Judge, I think— don’t
MR. WALKER: think this really I don’t
THE COURT: be sur- case. would to this
relevant about it. if hadn't talked
prised *2 insufficiency sup- of the evidence to
port his conviction. morning arrested one after
Flores was officers, executing police while a search house, through him warrant at a saw the door, running the screen from the front of the after house towards back house an- officers identified themselves and purpose. apprehended their nounced kitchen, something he in his had mouth, spit despite he which refused to out an officer’s command that he do so. him, him to causing officer then choked taco, spit part out of a breakfast he which eating. On the kitchen been debris, police free other which was of balloon, found a was later deter- mined to contain about two feet from feet. Flores’ No contraband was Flores, police found on and officers testified that did not see Flores throw did, the balloon on floor. Flores how- ever, fresh marks on his arm have needle in his pocket. and there $400.00 house, lived in the evidence Flores and her also lived Flores’ sister husband their child. Police discovered asleep in Flores’ the child one bedroom and in another sister and bedroom. Clearly, Flores was not in exclusive control of the house. of con possession
Unlawful by must be established trolled substance care, cus the accused exercised management tody, over control and that he knew substance contraband possessed he was contraband. Oaks Langlois, Langlois, Richard E. Kosub & Antonio, appellant. San 1982) (en banc). not the accused is Luitjen, Rodriguez, Mary Fred G. Mark possession exclusive Delavan, Gebhart, Kay Dist Michael Crim. found, knowledge and con substance Antonio, Attys., appellee. by independent established trol can be affirmative circumstances which CADENA, C.J., and Before to the contraband. ly link the accused ESQUIVEL DIAL, JJ. 327, 329 Deshong v. OPINION incorrectly contends that The State CADENA, Chief Justice. linked has been Flores following facts: Flores, by the appellant, juryA found house towards the back guilty Flores ran possession the court pres their officers announced years’ imprisonment him 25 as when the sentenced in close ence; (2) a habitual offender. We reverse because beyond offense doubt. clean reasonable proximity to Flores an otherwise (Tex. floor; (3) found Jackson fresh needle marks were arms; (en banc). cash was Crim.App.1984) Flores’ $400.00 employ- he had no found on re- of the trial court ment; lying in balloon versed, remanded and the case is *3 (6) floor; view to enter a court with instructions appellant’s residence. it was acquittal. circumstances Additional facts and link an affirmative have established DIAL, Justice, dissenting. view; in plain include: contraband was (1) finding the balloon believe light person to there was sufficient feet, at the no other heroin was; the contra the contraband see what room, commonly in person was conveniently to the accessible was band fact that balloons are used to trans-
accused; known the contraband enclosed; port the fact the accused’s found was delivery of heroin may prior his conviction for show action toward the the law. Pollan v. affirmatively link to the con- to intent violate 594, 596 612 S.W.2d traband. the balloon was true affirma
lying plain view the an the con link is established
tive view. Hernandez plain is in
traband itself 127, (Tex.Crim. 130
v. of a balloon is
App.1976). Heroin inside so as to warrant its
not within view absent by police without a warrant
seizure
officer knew that heroin
testimony that the
J.B. SPATES
Sharon
fre
or that balloons
Appellants,
Spates,
carry narcotics. Texas
quently are used to
Brown,
730, 742, 103
1535,
v.
S.Ct.
460 U.S.
DeLao v.
(1983);
1543,
dence that Flores kept inside often balloon or that heroin addition, prior his convic In of balloons. was not before delivery
tion phase of the guilt-innocence at the of Flores proximity close
trial. The
balloon, alone, an is insufficient establish State, link. Hernandez
affirmative (Tex.Crim.App.1975). Ap S.W.2d marks, flight, fresh needle
pellant’s heroin-related, to be not shown
which were pocket are not money found his link
sufficient Viewing the evidence the heroin. verdict, this light favorable to the most of fact rational trier finds that a elements the essential not have found
could