Luis Jaquez v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 10-95-00171-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 16, 1996; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Luis Jaquez was convicted of unlawful possession with intent to distribute cocaine after a bench trial, receiving a ten-year prison sentence probated for ten years. Jaquez appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported his conviction either as a party or principal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling Jaquez's point of error.

Key evidence included testimony from Officer Phillip Musgrove, who observed what he believed to be a drug transaction on December 1, 1994. Musgrove witnessed a Hispanic male handing money to a car passenger in exchange for a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance, which he suspected to be cocaine. After the transaction, the Hispanic male dropped an item identified as cocaine at his feet when approached by Musgrove. 

Musgrove arrested the suspected buyer, later identified as Madrid, and then assisted his partner with the driver of the car, Juan Hernandez, who was arrested for traffic violations. Jaquez, the passenger, was also arrested. An inventory search of the car revealed two semi-automatic pistols and a significant quantity of drugs, including cocaine and 'black-tar' heroin, all found in close proximity to where Jaquez was seated. The cocaine retrieved from the buyer matched the drugs found in the car, supporting the conclusion that Jaquez was involved in the drug transaction. The location of the arrest was noted to be a known narcotics area, further substantiating the officers' suspicions.

Officer DeLaRosa provided testimony regarding an incident on December 1, 1994, where he and Officer Musgrove observed what they suspected to be a drug transaction involving the Appellant and another man. Although DeLaRosa did not witness any money exchanged, the officers pursued the suspects after they attempted to flee. DeLaRosa approached the vehicle, ordered the occupants out, and handcuffed them after a pat-down search revealed no weapons. The driver showed identification, but the Appellant, identified as the passenger, did not.

Following the arrest, DeLaRosa searched the car, uncovering two .380 caliber semi-automatic pistols, a significant quantity of drugs, and cash: $60 on the Appellant and over $200 on the driver, Hernandez. A chemist's report confirmed that the seized drugs were cocaine and heroin.

In defense, Libraba Ortiz, the Appellant's cousin, testified that he was living with her and went to a convenience store to buy juice for his uncle, using his uncle's car. The Appellant stated he had $60 and encountered a man asking for beer money, which he did not provide. He claimed ignorance of the drugs and weapons in the car and mentioned sporadic employment prior to his arrest. The Appellant did not explain the presence of ammunition found on him.

The Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for unlawful possession with intent to deliver cocaine. However, the appellate review concluded that, when viewed favorably to the prosecution, there was enough evidence for a rational trier of fact to establish the essential elements of the crime, thereby affirming the conviction.

Appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence linking him to the seized drugs; however, the court disagrees. The appellate court clarifies that the previous analytical construct requiring circumstantial evidence to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of the defendant's innocence, established in Geesa v. State, is no longer applicable. Under Texas law, the standard for proving possession of illegal drugs requires the defendant to have exercised care, control, or custody over the substance and to have been aware of its nature. This can be proven through any evidence that affirmatively links the defendant to the drug, whether direct or circumstantial. The ruling in Brown v. State confirms that while a defendant must be affirmatively linked to the drugs, the link does not need to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as sufficiency of evidence is assessed under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. In this case, the evidence indicates that Appellant sold cocaine matching the seized drugs, with the cocaine found directly behind him in the vehicle, along with his possession of .380 caliber ammunition and the recovery of two pistols, one containing drugs. This evidence sufficiently establishes that Appellant knowingly possessed the drugs, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment.