David Finn – A Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer

a self-written blog detailing the professional life of David Finn

David Finn – A Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer header image 2

Factors to Consider in Drug Possession Cases

April 5th, 2007 · 5 Comments

This came through on the TCDLA list serve and I thought it was a great list. Courtesy of attorney Brian Baker.

Lassaint v. State, 79 S.W.3d 736 Over the years, a nonexclusive list of factors has been developed to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to affirmatively link theaccused with the controlled substance:1. Whether the contraband was in plain view or recovered from anenclosed place;(fn/1)

2. The accused was the owner of the premises or had the right topossess the place where the contraband was found, or was the owner ordriver of the automobile in which the contraband was found;

3. The accused was found with a large amount of cash;

4. The contraband was conveniently accessible to the accused, orfound on the same side of the vehicle as the accused was sitting;

5. The contraband was found in close proximity to the accused;

6. A strong residual odor of the contraband was present;

7. The accused possessed other contraband when arrested;

8. Paraphernalia to use the contraband was in view, or found on theaccused;

9. The physical condition of the accused indicated recent consumptionof the contraband in question;

10. Conduct by the accused indicated a consciousness of guilt;

11. The accused attempted to escape or flee;

12. The accused made furtive gestures;

13. The accused had a special connection to the contraband;

14. The occupants of the premises gave conflicting statements aboutrelevant matters;

15. The accused made incriminating statements connecting himself tothe contraband;

16. The quantity of the contraband; and,

17. The accused was observed in a suspicious area under suspiciouscircumstances.

Carvajal v. State, 529 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); State v.Derrow, 981 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet.ref’d); Mohmed v. State, 977 S.W.2d 624, 627 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998,pet. ref’d); Cantu v. State, 944 S.W.2d 669, 670 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi1997, pet. ref’d); Ortiz v. State, 930 S.W.2d 849, 853 (Tex.App.-Tyler1996, no pet.); Dixon, 918 S.W.2d at 681; Washington v. State, 902 S.W.2d649, 652 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1995, pet. ref’d); Watson v.State, 861 S.W.2d 410, 414–15 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1993, pet. ref’d).,

David Finn

Tags: Uncategorized

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 joseph lassaint // Feb 4, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    that case was so strang i really didnt know tha law. but the years tht i was there i learned and filed my appeal from prison. then i filed for my expunction. i believe that whoever speaks about the law to the courts best wins…

  • 2 joseph lassaint // Jan 5, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    YOU KNOW EVERYTIME I SEE THIS CASE OR IM REMINDED OF THIS CASE I CAINT HELP BUT FEEL A SINCE OF FREEDOM THAT ONLY GOD CAN GIVE. I AM TRUELY BLESSED AND I THANK GOD FOR A REVELATION OF WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED..

  • 3 Gena // Mar 13, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    I’m glad that you are free.

  • 4 Anonymous // Mar 15, 2012 at 4:55 am

    Joseph, what was the biggest lesson learned from this experience?

  • 5 Me // Apr 7, 2012 at 5:12 am

    I am glad that u r free.

Leave a Comment