Page 33 - TPA Journal January February 2023

it, and tested it, does not mean that the agents had The court of appeals also misapplied the standard
to collect the marijuana, nor does it mean that the of review when it gave undue weight to Lt. Nava’s
evidence is somehow “less sufficient” because testimony that he did not hear flushing sounds and
they did not. Lt. Nava testified that they did not by requiring direct evidence that Appellant put the
collect the marijuana because it was only a usable marijuana in the toilet. While hearing flushing
amount mixed with water and human waste. His noises might further support the case against
reference to only a usable amount was to the fact Appellant, the fact that Lt. Nava did not hear
that the undercover drug operation was meant to flushing noises does not render the evidence insuf-
bust a drug-dealing enterprise involving crack ficient. Finally, we disagree with the court of
cocaine and methamphetamine, not someone with appeals’ conclusion that the only evidence linking
a small amount of marijuana. We cannot blame Lt. Appellant to the marijuana in the toilet was his
Nava and his team for choosing not to collect only proximity to the toilet. There is a significant
a usable amount of loose marijuana mixed with amount of other evidence. The evidence shows
water and human waste. that Appellant did not comply with the agents’
commands to exit the restroom and did not answer
Having found the evidence legally sufficient to the agents in any fashion despite that they were
show that the marijuana was altered, we now must announcing themselves as police officers. Instead,
determine whether it is also sufficient to prove that the agents began hearing sounds of movement in
Appellant is the person who altered it. In conclud- the room. Then, when they tried to enter, the
ing that the evidence was legally insufficient to agents discovered that Appellant had locked the
prove identity, the court of appeals emphasized door. Finally, after forcing their way in, agents
that (1) there were three occupants in the motel found Appellant “just standing there” fully clothed
room, (2) that each person had opportunity and in a tiny one-to-two-foot space between the toilet
access to the toilet, and (3) that there was no evi- and the unused shower, and Appellant continued
dence about how long the marijuana had been in to remain silent. While searching the bathroom,
the toilet. By this, it appears to have been suggest- agents found loose marijuana in toilet water with
ing that the evidence is insufficient because it human waste in it. Some of the marijuana
could be interpreted to support at least four differ- appeared to still be burning. There were also small
ent possibilities, • the marijuana could have pipes at the bottom of the toilet. A rational jury
already been in the toilet when the motel room could reasonably infer from this evidence that
was rented, • one of the women went into the bath- Appellant was not using the toilet or showering
room that Appellant was already in, put the mari- but was instead trying to dispose of drugs and
juana in the toilet with the water and human waste, paraphernalia before the motel room was immi-
left, then Appellant locked the door, • one of the nently raided. We agree with the State that “the
women went into the bathroom, put the marijuana most rational, common-sense inference from this
in the toilet with water and human waste, left, then circumstantial evidence is that [Appellant], who
Appellant entered and locked the door, or • was alone in the locked bathroom with the tam-
Appellant was in the bathroom alone, he put the pered-with evidence, was the person who placed
marijuana in the toilet, and he locked the door. The the marijuana in the toilet.”
court of appeals appears to have invoked the dis-
avowed alternative-reasonable hypotheses doc- CONCLUSION
trine. The issue here is whether the evidence is Having found the evidence legally sufficient to
legally sufficient to show Appellant put the mari- sustain Appellant’s conviction for third-degree
juana in the toilet, not whether the evidence shows felony tampering with physical evidence, we need
that someone else might have done so. not address the State’s third ground for review,11

Jan. - Feb. 2023 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 29