Page 38 - TPA Journal January February 2024
P. 38
¥ the marijuana could have already been in agents began hearing sounds of movement in
the toilet when the motel room was rented, the room. Then, when they tried to enter,
¥ one of the women went into the bathroom the agents discovered that Appellant had
that Appellant was already in, put the mari- locked the door. Finally, after forcing their
juana in the toilet with the water and human w a y
waste, left, then Appellant locked the door, in, agents found Appellant “just standing
¥ one of the women went into the bathroom, there” fully clothed in a tiny one-to-two-foot
put the marijuana in the toilet with water and space between the toilet and the unused show-
human waste, left, then Appellant entered er, and Appellant continued to remain
and locked the door, or silent. While searching the bathroom, agents
¥ Appellant was in the bathroom alone, he found loose marijuana in toilet water with
put the marijuana in the toilet, and he locked human waste in it. Some of the marijuana
the door. appeared to still be burning. There were also
small pipes at the bottom of the toilet. A ratio-
nal jury could reasonably infer from this
The court of appeals appears to have invoked evidence that Appellant was not using the toi-
the disavowed alternative-reasonable let or showering but was instead trying to
hypotheses doctrine. The issue here is dispose of drugs and paraphernalia before the
whether the evidence is legally sufficient to motel room was imminently raided. We
show Appellant put the marijuana in the toilet, agree with the State that “the most rational,
not whether the evidence shows that someone common-sense inference from this
else might have done so. circumstantial evidence is that [Appellant],
who was alone in the locked bathroom with
the tampered-with evidence, was the person
The court of appeals also misapplied the who placed the marijuana in the toilet.”
Jackson standard of review when it gave
undue weight to Lt. Nava’s testimony that he
did not hear flushing sounds and by
requiring direct evidence that Appellant put Having found the evidence legally sufficient
the marijuana in the toilet. While hearing to sustain Appellant’s conviction for
flushing noises might further support the case third-degree felony tampering with physical
against Appellant, the fact that Lt. Nava evidence, we need not address the State’s
did not hear flushing noises does not render third ground for review, and we reverse the
the evidence insufficient. judgment of the court of appeals and
remand the cause for the court of appeals to
address Appellant’s remaining issues.
Finally, we disagree with the court of appeal-
s’ conclusion that the only evidence linking
Appellant to the marijuana in the toilet was David v State, Tex. Crim. App., No. PD-
his proximity to the toilet. There is a signifi- 0307-21, May 11, 2022
cant amount of other evidence. The evidence
shows that Appellant did not comply
with the agents’ commands to exit the
restroom and did not answer the agents in any
fashion despite that they were announcing
themselves as police officers. Instead, the
34 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
