 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adkins v. State3/24/2003
ount of cash; and (15) whether the conduct of the defendant indicated a consciousness of guilt. Id.; Pettigrew, 908 S.W.2d at 571.
In this case, the record is replete with evidence that the truck in which the drugs were found belonged to appellant. Appellant admitted to the officers that he had driven the truck to the parking lot where the search was conducted. The drugs were found in an enclosed space, the passenger compartment of appellant's truck, which he admitted having control over. The bottle containing the drugs was found behind the driver's seat of the single-cab truck, a location that would not have been readily accessible to any passenger of the truck. No evidence was introduced at trial suggesting that appellant's companion had been in the truck or had any connection with the drugs. Finally, when the officers approached appellant, before they asked any questions, he told them that he did not have any drugs. This is some evidence of a guilty conscience on the part of appellant. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we believe it is legally sufficient to support appellant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
Appellant's supplemental brief also raises the issue of the legal sufficiency of the jury's deadly weapon finding in connection with the possession offense. A deadly weapon finding is a finding: (1) that a deadly weapon was used or exhibited during the commission of, or immediate flight from, a felony; and (2) that the defendant used or exhibited that deadly weapon or, as a party to the offense, knew that weapon would be used or exhibited. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 3g(a)(2). Section 1.07(a)(17) of the penal code defines a deadly weapon as:
(A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or
(B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(17) (Vernon 1994).
It is clear that the stick in this case is not a deadly weapon per se under section 1.07(a)(17)(A). See Thomas v. State, 821 S.W.2d 616, 619-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (noting phrase "deadly weapon per se" means an object that meets definition in 1.07(a)(17)(A)); Taylor v. State, 859 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1993, no pet.) (stating that a sawed-off hardwood axe handle approximately eighteen to twenty-four inches long is not a deadly weapon per se); Granger v. State, 722 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1986, pet. ref'd) (noting that stick three and a half or four feet long and two inches in diameter is not a deadly weapon per se). Further, we have already concluded that the stick in this case is not a "club" and, thus, is not "specially designed, made, or adapted" for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.01(1). Consistent with that conclusion, we also conclude the stick in this case does not fall within the substantially similar definition of deadly weapon found in section 1.07(a)(17)(A).
An object that does not fall within section 1.07(a)(17)(A) can qualify as a deadly weapon through the manner of its use or intended use under subsection (B). Hammons v. State, 856 S.W.2d 797, 800 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref'd). Under section 1.07(a)(17)(B), an "object is a deadly weapon if the actor intends a use of the object in which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury." McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In deadly weapon cases involving knives, the court of criminal appeals has held that evidence of the appellant's verbal threats, th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|