Page 36 - TPA Journal January February 2024
P. 36
proceeding. While the State argued at trial that reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable
Appellant’s actions altered, concealed, and doubt that the marijuana had become
destroyed the marijuana, the only two theories inseparably combined with the human waste,
of liability presented to this Court for review changing the nature and quality of the
are whether Appellant altered or destroyed the marijuana.
marijuana. Because we conclude that the
evidence is legally sufficient to show that
Appellant altered the marijuana, we do not The court of appeals’ conclusion that the
address the sufficiency of the evidence to alteration evidence was insufficient was in
prove destruction.
part based on its comment that there was no
evidence about whether the marijuana could
be dried and ingested, and still render
The court of appeals held that the proof of someone intoxicated. One way to interpret
“alteration” is insufficient because there this comment is that the court of appeals was
is no evidence about whether mixing loose suggesting that such evidence could have
marijuana with water and human waste proven that the chemical composition of the
changed the chemical structure of the marijuana had not been changed. If that is the
marijuana. It appears that the court of appeal- case, as we have already explained, it erred.
s’ conclusion was based on this Court’s deci- Another way to interpret this comment,
sion in Stahmann. In that case, the State however, is that the court of appeals believed
alleged that Stahmann altered a pill bottle by that whether the marijuana was altered turned
moving it when he threw it over a fence after on whether the marijuana’s evidentiary value
he was involved in a car accident. In our could be rehabilitated after it was diminished
analysis in that case, we noted that, “when a by mixing it with water and human waste. If
defendant is alleged to have altered a physical that is what it meant, it also erred. Based on
thing,” “‘alter’ means that the defendant the plain language of the statute, to commit the
changed or modified the thing itself . . . .” We offense of tampering with physical evidence
never said, however, that the State had to put by alteration, a defendant must alter a “record,
on evidence that the pill bottle had been document, or thing,” and he must do so with
chemically altered to prove that Stahmann the requisite knowledge and intent. There is
altered it. “Alter” is interpreted according to no language in the statute expressly or
its common usage. We have said that word in implicitly suggesting that altering a thing
its common usage can mean “to change; make requires impairing the thing’s evidentiary
different; modify.” Another court of appeals value, only that the person intended to do so.
has relied on dictionaries defining “alter” as,
“to make different without changing into
something else” and “to make different in Appellant argues that our decision in Rabb
some particular, as size, style, course, or the should control. In that case, Rabb swallowed a
like; modify.” The common thread among the bag of drugs and was convicted of tampering
definitions is that “alter” has an expansive with physical evidence by destruction. He was
meaning in common usage that belies the alleged to have destroyed the bag of drugs. Id.
court of appeals’ construction requiring proof We held that the evidence was legally insuffi-
of a change in the chemical composition of the cient to prove “destruction” because there was
marijuana. A rational juror interpreting the no evidence that Appellant’s digestive process
word “alter” in its common usage could
destroyed the bag. According to Appellant,
32 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
