Timothy Vernon Beck v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 10-08-00365-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 1, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Timothy Vernon Beck was indicted for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence related to an ongoing investigation into marijuana possession and a child welfare complaint. The indictment specified that on April 17, 2008, in Hill County, Beck allegedly altered, concealed, or destroyed suspected marijuana to impair its availability as evidence. A jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of attempted tampering, sentencing him to twenty years’ imprisonment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions.

The case involved an investigation initiated by Shawn Hernandez from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, following a child welfare complaint about a minor named M.M. Hernandez and police officers visited M.M.’s home, where they spoke to his mother, L.C. Beck, identified as M.M.'s father, insisted on being present during discussions with L.C., becoming argumentative when asked to leave the kitchen. Despite Beck's resistance, he was escorted to another room while Hernandez questioned L.C. about drug use in the home, which she denied. However, Gloer, an officer, detected the smell of marijuana and, with L.C.'s consent, searched the residence, finding a baggie of a green, leafy substance believed to be marijuana, which L.C. claimed belonged to Beck. Beck, overhearing the conversation, loudly protested that the substance was not marijuana.

Gloer informed Beck that he suspected the substance in a baggie was marijuana, emphasizing the importance of investigating drug use in relation to a child welfare case. Despite Gloer’s insistence, Beck denied it was marijuana. Beck then took the baggie from Gloer, emptied its contents onto the carpet, and was subsequently removed from the residence and taken into custody by Gloer. After another officer arrived, Gloer searched for the baggie but could only find it outside the house with minimal remnants of marijuana, which Beck's actions had obscured and altered, hindering the investigation.

Beck argued that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear the full indictment, claiming that the mention of "a child welfare complaint" constituted extraneous offense evidence under Rule of Evidence 404(b). The court ruled that the indictment itself is not evidence of guilt, and thus, the mention did not violate Rule 404(b). Additionally, Beck contended that evidence from the child welfare complaint investigation was irrelevant. The court found this evidence pertinent to the allegations in the indictment, confirming the trial court's admission of it.

Lastly, Beck challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion for directed verdict, asserting insufficient evidence for conviction. The court explained that a review for legal sufficiency assesses whether a rational jury could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.

The determination of the rationality of a trier of fact's finding hinges on viewing all trial evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, resolving any inconsistencies in favor of the outcome. A person is guilty of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence if they knowingly alter, destroy, or conceal evidence with the intent to impair its availability during an ongoing investigation. Additionally, attempted tampering occurs if an individual, with the specific intent to commit this offense, takes steps beyond mere preparation that ultimately fail to achieve the intended result. 

In this case, Beck's argument, citing Pannell v. State, contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove he attempted to conceal or destroy evidence. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals clarified that Pannell incorrectly imposed an unsupported mental-state requirement. Furthermore, it is established that the title of the investigation does not need to match the evidence destroyed in an indictment under the relevant statute, provided the individual intended to impair the evidence's availability in an ongoing investigation.

The evidence presented was deemed legally sufficient. Specifically, during a child welfare investigation, Beck was found in possession of marijuana. When confronted by an investigator, Beck attempted to destroy the marijuana, actions that a rational jury could find constituted an attempt to conceal evidence, given his knowledge of the investigation. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.