Understanding what counts as “possession” in Texas can make all the difference in a criminal case.

In Texas, the concept of "possession" can sometimes be a little tricky when we think about it in terms of the law as opposed to what we all commonly define as "possession". Whether it’s related to controlled substances, firearms, or stolen property, possession is a key element in many criminal offenses. But what does possession actually mean in the eyes of Texas law? This post will break down the definition, legal standards, and consequences of possession in the Lone Star State.

Definition of Possession in Texas Law

Under Texas Penal Code §1.07(a)(39), possession is defined as having "actual care, custody, control, or management." This broad definition means that possession isn’t limited to physical ownership. Instead, it can include situations where a person has any access to or control over an object, even if they don’t physically hold it at the moment.

Possession can be categorized into two types:

1. Actual Possession: This occurs when the individual has physical custody of the item. For instance, if someone is holding a bag containing illegal drugs, they are in actual possession.
2. Constructive Possession: This arises when an individual does not have physical custody but still has control or the right or ability to excersise control the item. For example, if illegal drugs are found in the glove compartment of a car that a person owns and operates, they may be deemed to have constructive possession. Even if they don't own or are operating the vehicle, police officer's may deem a passenger in the vehicle as having the ability to exercise care, custody, control or management of the illegal item.

Establishing Possession in a Criminal Case

To prove possession in a criminal case, the prosecution must demonstrate two key elements:

1. Knowledge: The accused must have known about the presence of the item, and;
2. Control: The accused must have exercised, or had the ability to exercise, control over the item.

Merely being near an illegal item is not enough to establish possession. For example, if drugs are found in a house shared by multiple roommates, the prosecution must show evidence linking the accused to the drugs specifically—such as fingerprints, ownership of the container, or incriminating statements.

Joint Possession

Texas law also recognizes the concept of joint possession. This means that more than one person can be found to have possession of the same item. For example, if two people are in a vehicle and illegal contraband is found in a location accessible to both, they could both potentially be charged with possession.

Consequences of Possession Charges

Possession charges can carry serious consequences in Texas, varying based on the type and quantity of the item in question. For instance:

• Drug Possession: Penalties depend on the type of drug and the amount, with punishments ranging from misdemeanors to first-degree felonies.
• Firearm Possession: Certain individuals, such as convicted felons, are prohibited from possessing firearms, and violating this prohibition can result in severe penalties.
• Stolen Property: Possession of stolen property can lead to theft charges, with penalties depending on the value of the property.

Defenses to Possession Charges

There are several potential defenses to possession charges in Texas, including:

• Lack of Knowledge: Demonstrating that the accused was unaware of the item's presence.
• Lack of Control: Arguing that the accused did not have the ability to exercise control over the item.
• Mistaken Identity: Showing that the item belonged to someone else and the accused had no connection to it.
• Violation of Constitutional Rights: If law enforcement obtained evidence through an illegal search or seizure, that evidence may be suppressed.

Conclusion

"Possession" is a nuanced legal concept in Texas, encompassing both actual and constructive control over items. Understanding the intricacies of possession is crucial for anyone facing criminal charges. What you think may or may not be possession may be different than what the law defines it as. If you or someone you know is dealing with a possession-related charge, consulting an experienced criminal defense attorney is essential to ensure your rights are protected and to navigate the complexities of the legal system effectively.

Does the Smell of Marijuana Allow Officers to Search My Vehicle Without a Warrant?

In Texas, the answer is yes. The possession of marijuana is a crime in Texas, so if an officer smells marijuana emanating from your car, he has probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. With probable cause, the law permits the officer to stop and search your car— regardless of whether you consent.

The officer has the ability to do this through what is called the “automobile exception” to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement.¹ Generally, the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires police officers to first obtain a warrant before they can search a person’s property. However, because automobiles can quickly move locations and evade law enforcement, the Supreme Court reasoned that it would be impractical to require officers to first secure a warrant before they are permitted to search a vehicle.² So by claiming to smell marijuana, law enforcement officers can also claim to have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed—allowing them to take advantage of the automobile exception and search a vehicle without anything more.

Will the Search Laws Change if Marijuana Becomes Legal?

Maybe. There have been small changes in the law with the current trends in marijuana legalization. A couple of state courts adopted the rule that, after legalization or decriminalization, the smell of marijuana is no longer enough on its own to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle. For example, in Vermont, after the decriminalization of adult possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, the Vermont Supreme Court held that the odor of marijuana alone is insufficient to establish probable cause to search a vehicle.³ The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state’s decriminalization policy means that the possession of marijuana is now a civil infraction, making the smell of it an insufficient basis for officers to believe a crime is being committed.

However, most states where marijuana is legalized or decriminalized still follow the rule that the smell of it establishes probable cause in support of a vehicle search.⁴ This is because these states still criminalize the possession of larger amounts of marijuana—meaning that the smell of it still indicates that a crime could be underway. This is the logic that the Washington, Maryland, Colorado, and Arizona courts follow.⁵

But what about Texas?

As stated above, the possession of marijuana in Texas is a crime, and officers are still justified in searching vehicles if they smell marijuana coming from them. However, Texas legalized the cultivation of industrial hemp in 2019, which smells like just like marijuana. The issue of whether probable cause can still be supported by the odor of marijuana in light of hemp’s legalization was raised in state court in 2020, but the court left it undecided as the vehicle search in question occurred before the legalization of hemp.⁶ It remains to be seen if or when Texas will legalize marijuana, and what attitude Texas courts will take towards the question of marijuana odor and vehicle searches.

 

[1] Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
[2] Id., at 153.
[3] Zullo v. State, 2019 Vt. LEXIS 1, * (Vt. January 4, 2019).
[4] Cece white, The Sativas and Indicas of Proof: Why the Smell of Marijuana Should Not Establish Probable Cause for a Warrantless Vehicle Search in Illinois, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 187, 211 (2020).
[5] Id., at 211.
[6] Geberkidan v. State, 2020 WL 5406243, NO. 12-19-00296-CR (2020).

Gov. Greg Abbott has now signed House Bill 1325 into law, clarifying the legality of hemp-derived, low THC CBD products in Texas.

On June 10, 2019, Gov. Abbot signed HB 1325 which modified sections of the Texas Agriculture Code and sections of the Texas Health and Safety Code.

The first major modifications come by way of the Texas Agriculture Code. The code now defines and legalizes “hemp” and establishes a legal production plan for the regulation of hemp and hemp-based products.

The Definition of Hemp

“Hemp” is now defined in in Section 121.001 0f the Texas Agriculture code as

“the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds of the plant and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

This definition is essentially the previous definition of marijuana under the Health and Safety Code but now isolates plants that contain less than .3% THC as being legal “hemp”.

By providing a clear definition of “Hemp” including plants or products that contain .3% THC or less, the legislature has resolved the issue that previously existed making the possession of any amount of THC regardless of it’s origin a felony level offense in Texas.

The Texas Agriculture Code has also been amended to establish a legal production plan for the regulation and sale of hemp and hemp-based products. The Code now establishes a licensing process for businesses looking to grow or sale hemp products.

New Rules for Peace Officers

The amendments to the Code also now give powers and duties to Peace Officers who come into contact with hemp regard to determining whether a plant or substance is marijuana or hemp. Under Sec. 122.358 of the Texas Agriculture Code, a peace officer may now inspect and collect a reasonable sized sample of any material from the plant Cannabis sativa L. found in a vehicle to determine the THC concentration of that material. Unless the officer has probable cause to believe the plant material is marijuana, the peace officer may not seize the plant material or arrest the person transporting the plant material. This would include hemp-derived CBD oil containing .3% THC.

In regards to the Health and Safety Code, HB 1325 has amended the code to exclude hemp (and more importantly the THC in hemp) as defined by Section 121.001 from the definition of a Controlled Substance. The bill also now specifically excludes hemp as defined by Section 121.001 (and the THC in hemp) from the definition of “Marijuana” in Section 481.002 (26) of the Health and Safety Code.

House bill 1325 has significantly clarified the previously confusing state of the law concerning CBD products in Texas. We advise those that are selling, buying or possessing CBD products to read the text of the bill for more details.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB1325/id/2026154/Texas-2019-HB1325-Enrolled.html

You have seen it on the news…yet another state has legalized marijuana. It seems as if weed is everywhere, surely Texas has jumped on the bandwagon and legalized it too! Our firm receives calls from people all the time who all say the same thing; they thought marijuana was legal now. Not in Texas.

Current Marijuana Laws in Texas

Despite having been legalized in other states, possessing even a small amount of marijuana is a crime in Texas. The Texas Health and Safety Code says it is illegal for a person to knowingly or intentionally possess a usable quantity of marijuana. How much marijuana a person has in their possession will affect the level of severity of the offense.

• Up to 2 0z- Class B Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and up to a $2,000 fine
• 2oz to 4oz- Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $4,000 fine
• 4oz to 5lbs- State Jail Felony, punishable by 180 days to 2 years in jail and up to a $10,000 fine
• 5lbs to 50lbs- 3rd Degree Felony, punishable by 2 to 10 years in jail and up to a $10,000 fine
• 50lbs to 2000lbs- 2nd Degree Felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in jail and up to a $10,000 fine
• More than 2000lbs- 1st Degree Felony, punishable by 2 to 99 years in jail and up to a $50,000 fine

Proposed Texas Laws Relating to Marijuana

Texas failed to pass any new marijuana legislation in 2017, but proponents of legalized marijuana are hopeful for the 2019 legislative session. House Bill 2107 was proposed during the 2017 session, co-authored by 78 House members. The bill would have expanded the Compassionate Use Act to include Texans dealing with medical issues other than intractable epilepsy. While the bill narrowly missed being brought to a vote, it showed there was bipartisan support for such a bill, and legislators remain optimistic marijuana reform will happen in 2019.

Medical Marijuana in Texas

The Texas Compassionate Use Act was signed by Governor Greg Abbot in 2015. The Act allows for individuals with intractable epilepsy to have access to CBD oil, a low THC cannabis oil. The bill prohibits smoking marijuana. Critics of the law say it is unworkable, as it requires a doctor to “prescribe” marijuana rather than recommend it as they do in other states where medical marijuana is legal. Under current federal law, a doctor “prescribing” marijuana could be open to sanctions, while one recommending the use is not. Another issue is that the ratio of THC to CBD that is allowed under the law is not potent enough to help some patients. There is potential for changes to be made to the Act during this legislative session, with proponents of the Act looking to broaden the scope and make access easier for patients.

THC Oil in Texas (Wax, Dabs, Marijuana Concentrate)

Possessing THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) oil in Texas is considered a more serious crime than simply possessing marijuana. Over the last few years, vaping THC oil, which is a concentrated version of the mind-altering component of marijuana, has become popular. Under Texas law, THC oil or wax is considered a concentrate and possessing it is a felony criminal offense.

• Less than 1 Gram- State Jail Felony
• 1 Gram to 4 Grams- Third Degree Felony
• 4 to 400 Grams- Second Degree Felony
• 400 grams or more - First Degree Felony

The law considers THC oil and wax to be in a different penalty group that marijuana, due to the higher level of THC, and consequences are much harsher. So while a typical small amount of marijuana could be punishable as a misdemeanor, even a very small amount of THC oil can be punishable as a felony. This is a common misconception that we often see in our THC oil cases. The user believes that a low amount is a misdemeanor, much like a low amount of marijuana. Not so. Every THC oil case is a felony.

Edible THC in Texas

The use of THC oil in edibles can be very serious. When weighing the amount of a controlled substance, the Texas Health and Safety Code includes all adulterants and dilutants in the total weight. Popular THC laced edibles like gummy candy and brownies will be weighed in their entirety, and can result in very serious felony charges.

CBD Oil in Texas

Cannabidiol oil (CBD Oil) is made from cannabis, but is non-psychoactive. CBD oil that is made from industrial hemp is currently legal in Texas. Recently, shops selling CBD oil products have been popping up all over the metroplex, with promises the product can relieve pain and anxiety. The Texas Department of State Health Services has begun to crack down on retailers selling food products made with CBD oil, claiming they have the power to regulate any food product that contains CBD oil.

But not all CBD oil is legal. If there is any trace of THC in the CBD oil, the user could face prosecution for misdemeanor Possession of a Controlled Substance (Not in a Penalty Group).

Synthetic Marijuana in Texas

K2, or Spice, is a synthetic form of marijuana that is created by spraying natural herbs with chemicals meant to mimic the effects of marijuana. Synthetic Marijuana is illegal in Texas, and carries the same punishment as marijuana.

Selective Prosecution for Marijuana Offenses in Texas

Several counties across the state, including Dallas, Bexar, and Harris, have implemented a marijuana cite and release program whereby folks are not being arrested for low-level possession charges. Other counties have diversion programs for first-time or low level offenders. You should check with a knowledgable attorney in your local area to learn more about the diversion programs available.

In Tarrant County, depending on the circumstances of the case, a marijuana offender may qualify for the Deferred Prosecution Program (DPP) or the First Offender Drug Program (FODP). Again, you should check with an attorney to determine whether you might be eligible to participate in either program.

Conclusion

Regardless of whether you disagree with what the law should be in regard to marijuana in Texas, it is currently illegal to use or possess. If you are arrested for possession of marijuana, you may qualify for a diversion program that will ultimately allow you to get your record fully expunged. Contact one of our attorneys today if you have pending marijuana charges in Tarrant County. We will be happy to discuss your options and defend your case.

The Case of the Not Too "Wise" Bus Passenger

United States v. Wise, 877 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. TX 2017)

FACTS: In this case, police officers were conducting bus interdictions at a Greyhound bus stop. After a certain bus stopped, the driver got off the bus and the officers approached him requesting consent to search the passenger cabin of the bus. The bus driver consented to a search and two experienced narcotics officers in plain clothes boarded the bus. The officers did not block the exit or otherwise obstruct any of the passengers from departing the bus. One officer walked to the back of the bus while the other officer remained at the front.

The officer at the front of the bus noticed a man who was pretending to be asleep. The officer found this suspicious, because in his experience, criminals on buses often pretended to be asleep to avoid police contact. The officer walked past the "sleeping" man and turned around. The sleeping man (named Morris Wise) then turned to look back at officer, revealing that he was not asleep after all. The officer then approached Wise (now awake) and asked to see his bus ticket. Wise gave the officer a bus ticket, bearing the name "James Smith." The officer had a hunch that James Smith was a fake name. The officer then asked Wise if he had any luggage with him on the bus. Wise said yes and motioned to the luggage rack directly above his head.

Wise then gave the officers consent to search the duffle bag in the overhead compartment. The officers did not find any contraband in the duffle bag. The officers also noticed a backpack near Wise and asked if the backpack belonged to him. Wise denied ownership of the backpack. The officers then asked the other passengers about the backpack and no one claimed it, so the officers removed the backpack at the bus driver's request.

Outside the bus, a trained police canine alerted to the backpack. The officers then cut a small lock off the backpack, searched it, and found seven brick-type packages that appeared to contain cocaine.

The officers then went back onto the bus and asked Wise if he would mind getting off the bus to speak to the officers. Wise complied with the officers' request and got off the bus. The officers asked Wise if he had any weapons, which he denied that he had any weapons, and then they asked him to empty his pockets.

From his pockets, Wise gave the officers his ID card with bearing the name "Morris Wise" and a lanyard with several keys attached to it. Not surprisingly, one of the key opened the lock that the officers had to cut off of the backpack (that Wise said was not his). The officer then arrested Wise, and the government charged him with several drug-related offenses.

Motion to Suppress the Search as the Fruits on an Illegal "Checkpoint Stop"

Wise filed a motion to suppress the evidence as a violation of his 4th amendment right against unreasonable searched and seizures. The district court held that the officers' conduct in searching the bus constituted an unconstitutional checkpoint stop. In addition, the district court held that the bus driver did not voluntarily consent to the officers' search of the luggage compartment where the backpack was located. As a result, the district court suppressed all evidence the officers seized after the stop.

The government appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

First, the court held that the district court incorrectly characterized the officers' bus interdiction as an unconstitutional checkpoint. The court noted that the Supreme Court's cases involving checkpoints involve roadblocks or other types of conduct where the government initiates a stop to interact with motorists. In this case, the officers did not require the bus driver to stop at the station. Instead, the driver made the scheduled stop as required by his employer, Greyhound. In addition, the officers only approached the driver after he had disembarked from the bus, and the driver voluntarily agreed to speak with them. The court concluded that the interaction between the officers and the driver was better characterized as a "bus interdiction."

Second, although Wise had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his luggage, the court held that as a passenger, Wise did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the luggage compartment of the commercial bus. As a result, the court concluded that Wise had no standing to challenge the officers' search of that compartment, to which the bus driver consented.

Third, the court held that the officers did not seize Wise, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, when they approached him, asked to see his identification, and requested his consent to search his luggage. Instead, the court concluded that Wise's interaction with the officers was a consensual encounter because a reasonable person in Wise's position would have felt free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.

Finally, the court held that Wise voluntarily answered the officer's questions, voluntarily emptied his pockets, and voluntarily gave the officer his identification and keys.

Can a Defendant Be Convicted for Using a "Fraudulent Prescription Form" When They Only Altered the Information on an Otherwise Valid Prescription?

Avery v. State, 359 S.W. 3d 230 (2012)

In 2012, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals released an opinion concerning whether a defendant may be convicted under Texas Health and Safety Code Section 481.129(a)(5)(B) for using a "fraudulent prescription form" when the facts showed that the defendant altered the dosage information on an otherwise valid prescription that had been written by the defendant's physician.

The Facts — The Trial Court Denied Defendant’s Motion and Defendant was Convicted for Using a Fraudulent Prescription Form

In 2009, Defendant received a prescription for forty 2.5-milligram Lortab pills from her doctor after she complained of knee and back pain. Before dropping off the prescription at the pharmacy, Defendant attempted to scribble out the “2.5” and make it look like “7.5.” The pharmacist became suspicious and called the doctor’s office to confirm the prescription. The nurse confirmed the Defendant’s prescription was for 2.5-milligram pills and the pharmacist called the store security, who then contacted police.

During trial in which the defendant had been charged with using a fraudulent prescription form, Defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal. Defendant argued that, while there was evidence of forgery, there was no evidence that she used a "fraudulent prescription form" as alleged in the indictment. Defendant further argued that the prescription form was not fraudulent, but only that what the doctor wrote was altered. Therefore, there was no evidence that Defendant committed fraud by using a fraudulent prescription form.

However, the State responded that even by altering an otherwise legitimate prescription form, as Defendant did when attempting to change the dosage, Defendant had created a fraudulent prescription form. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion and the jury found Defendant guilty. Defendant was sentenced of 25 years’ confinement and a $1,500 fine.

The Court of Appeals Vacated the Trial Court’s Judgment and Entered a Verdict of Acquittal, Holding Defendant’s Actions More Closely Resembled Actions in a Different Subsection of Statute Instead of that Listed in the Indictment

Section 481.129 of the Texas Health and Safety Code governs the offense of fraud under the Texas Controlled Substances Act. According to Section 481.129(a)(5)(A), a person commits an offense if they possesses, obtains, or attempts to possess a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge.

Section 481.129(a)(5)(B) differs slightly in that a person commits the offense if they possess or attempt to possess a controlled substance through the use of a fraudulent prescription form.

Section 481.075 of the Texas Health and Safety Code governs the “Official Prescription Program,” which prescribers must follow in order to prescribe Schedule II Controlled Substances. This section describes the elements of an “official prescription form” as the controlled substance prescribed as well as the quantity of that controlled substance. The State argued that since the prescriber’s written words are part of the “official prescription form,” the Defendant turned the entire document into a “fraudulent prescription form” when she altered the written words.

The Court of Appeals, however, accepted neither party’s argument in full and believed its job was to determine whether Defendant’s actions were “more” like the “misrepresentation, fraud, [or] forgery” or like the “use of a fraudulent prescription form.” The Court of Appeals determined that the action may fall under either description, but cannot fall under both. Thus, the Court of Appeals ruled that Defendant’s actions—altering the writing—more closely resembled “forgery” than the “use of a fraudulent prescription form.”

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment and entered a verdict of acquittal.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed the COA, Holding that Defendant’s Alteration of Information on the Legitimate Prescription Violated a Different Statute than that for which Indicted

The Court of Criminal Appeals first addressed factual matters in the Court of Appeals’s opinion. Beginning with discussing the original indictment, it did not specify which Schedule of controlled substance Lortab is on. The Court of Appeals identified it is a Schedule II controlled substance, but also cited to definitions that describe Lortab as a combination drug that may be Schedule III. The pharmacist’s testimony identified Defendant’s Lortab as a Schedule III controlled substance mixture.

Secondly, as a result of a different schedule drug, Section 481.075 would not be applicable as it only applies to Schedule II controlled substances and does not mention Schedule III substances. Further, there was nothing in the record that led the Court of Criminal Appeals to believe that Defendant used an “official prescription form.”

The Court of Criminal Appeals analyzed how the Court of Appeals discussed the history and intent of the statutes, and determined that, based on statutory inferences and common language, “prescription form” refers to a pre-printed form that is used to write information on it. Further, the Legislature intended to create a legal distinction between completed prescriptions and the prescription forms.

After analyzing the statute applied in the Court of Appeals, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that Subsection (B) of Section 481.129(a)(5) only governs the use of a fraudulent prescription form. Further, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the writing on the form is not an element of that offense.

In the case at hand, the State originally charged Defendant with attempting to obtain a controlled substance “through use of a fraudulent prescription form.” The evidence presented by the State adduced that Defendant fraudulently altered the information written on the legitimate prescription form. Although the evidence would have supported a conviction had Defendant been charged under another statute, the evidence does not support a conviction for the offense Defefndant was charged with.

Although the Court of Criminal Appeals disagrees with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, it agrees in its judgment and affirms the Court of Appeals’s judgment of acquittal.

A Traffic Stop for a Minor Traffic Infraction Leads to Search, Seizure, and Arrest: Exactly When Should Traffic Stops End?

If you've been a licensed (or even unlicensed) driver in Texas for long enough, you've experienced a traffic stop. Whether it be for speeding or something worse, a traffic stop is not generally a pleasant experience. But in some traffic stops across the state (hopefully not yours), the police conduct a search of the vehicle, then a search of the driver or passengers, and, finally make an arrest of some sort. How does something like a broken tail light or speeding lead to search, seizure, and arrest? When traffic stops for minor infractions potentially lead to serious criminal charges, it’s important to know how Texas courts define the moment when a traffic stop ends.

King v. State (2nd Court of Appeals - Fort Worth, 2016)

Broken Tail Light Leads to a Traffic Stop

Around 1:00 am, Jennifer Dowling drove Christopher King’s car home from a night on the town. Blue Mound Police noticed that the car had a broken right tail light and conducted a traffic stop pursuant to the infraction. Police ran the standard background check on Dowling, the driver, and King, the passenger, only to discover that neither had a valid driver’s license. As a result, Dowling was arrested for driving without a license. Police did not permit King to drive the car away and informed him that they would impound the car because leaving the car behind posed a safety hazard for other motorists.

Consent to Search Obtained, Traffic Stop Continued

To begin the impounding process, police asked King to exit the vehicle. When King got out of the car, police asked if they could perform a pat-down. Nervously, King complied with the request. When King stood up, a white cylinder-shaped container fell out of King’s pants onto the ground, and he admitted that the container held meth. King was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance.

Trial Court Holds That King Consented to the Pat-Down

Before trial, King filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence—the meth and the container—because the evidence was seized without a warrant. At the suppression hearing, the State prevailed, arguing that King consented to the pat-down, and the interaction was a consensual encounter. King lost his suppression motion, and plead guilty to the charges. The trial court sentenced King to twelve years confinement. Arguing that the traffic stop ended when Dowling was arrested and that the traffic stop was improperly extended to him, King appealed to the Second Court of Appeals.

Second Court of Appeals Discusses Traffic Stops

The Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth relied upon existing case law from the Supreme Court to evaluate the merits of King’s appeal. “A lawful roadside stop begins when a vehicle is pulled over for investigation of a traffic violation.” Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333; 129 S. Ct. 781,, 788 (2009). “A traffic stop ends when police have no further need to control the scene.” Id., 129 S. Ct. at 783. According to the Second Court of Appeals, the police needed to control the scene even after Dowling was arrested. In asking King for a pat-down, they were taking reasonable steps to secure the area by ensuring that King was not a safety threat while waiting for a tow truck. Further, “the impoundment of the vehicle was a task tied to the traffic infraction, and King ma[de] no argument that the task [of impoundment] should have reasonably been completed at the time the police asked for consent to the pat-down.” The Second Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s holding that the traffic stop was not improperly extended.

What does all of this mean for motorists? So long as the police are reasonably securing the scene by taking steps in an effort to maintain safety, the police may continue the traffic stop until the conclusion of such safety measures, including but not limited to, pat-downs, security sweeps, background checks, and impoundments.  In this case, King would have had a more colorable argument if he had been a licensed driver and the police extended the stop rather than letting him drive the vehicle away from the scene.

Officers Are Justified in Stopping Vehicles to Render Emergency Aid Making Evidence Found in the Process Fair Game

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dealing with the emergency-aid warrant exception and whether that exception extends to vehicular stops. The issue facing the court was whether a traffic stop of Appellant Toussaint to warn him that a gang member had ordered a hit on him was justified under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed the suppression order from the trial court holding that the emergency aid exception did justify the stop because this was a proper exigent circumstance.

US v. Toussaint (5th Circuit - 2016)

The Facts—Trial Court Found the Exigent Circumstances Had Expired

An FBI agent monitoring a wiretap overheard a suspected gang-member order his associate to kill Toussaint who could be found in a specific neighborhood driving a specific car, a silver Infiniti. Immediately the agent contacted a local police officer who met with several other officers to determine the plan to locate and warn Toussaint of the hit. The officers drive to the specified neighborhood and search for silver Infinities until they find one with an occupant leaving the neighborhood. The officers follow the vehicle, observe the driver, Toussaint, speeding and pull him over. Once pulled over Toussaint flees the officers on foot until he was caught and placed under arrest. During a search of Toussaint incident to arrest officers found a pistol and a bag of crack cocaine. The amount of time between the FBI agent overhearing the initial threat and Toussaint’s arrest was about 45 minutes.

Toussaint was charged with drug and firearm violations. Toussaint filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop arguing that the stop was not justified. The trial court granted Toussaint’s motion to suppress finding that the exigency of the emergency had expired by the time the officers stopped Toussaint.

The Court of Appeals Reversed the Trial Courts Decision—Holding the Emergency-Aid Exception Applied in this Case and the Exigency Had Not Expired

The court held that the emergency-aid exception extends to vehicular stops when under the circumstances of the need to assist persons with serious injuries or threatened with serious injury. The emergency aid exception allows officers to conduct warrantless searches or seizures when there is a need to assist persons with serious injuries or threatened with a serious injury. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 at 483. Under this exception, officers can enter areas they otherwise are not allowed in order to help someone. While the majority of such cases involve warrantless entries into homes, the court determined that there is no logical reason to not extend the exception to vehicular stops. Additionally, looking to reasonableness, “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment,” the court stated “the benevolent act of trying to notify a driver that his life is in danger epitomizes reasonableness.” Thus, the court held that the emergency aid exception can be used to justify a traffic stop under proper exigent circumstances.

Then, the court held that the exception applied in this case and officers were justified in stopping Toussaint. The court stated that trial courts must examine objective facts of the circumstance in determining whether there was an objectively reasonable basis for believing exigency actually existed. The officers’ subjective motivations are never relevant in the determination. When the officers received what all parties agreed was a credible threat against Toussaint, who was located in a specific neighborhood and driving a specific vehicle, the court held it was reasonable for the officers to believe there was a serious threat on Toussaint’s life. Further, that exigency still existed at the time of the stop because the threat on Toussaint’s life had not ended within the 45 minutes it took officers to locate him and warn him. Since the stop was justified the search was proper and evidence was legally obtained because it would be contrary to the needs of law enforcement to force officers to ignore evidence found when they stop vehicles to render emergency aid.

In conclusion, the court held that the emergency aid exception extends to vehicular stops and that here, the stop of Toussaint was justified under this exception because there was a serious threat on his life. Accordingly, the court reversed the suppression order because the trial court was improper in granting the motion.

Last week I wrote about things that every parent needs to know about kids and drugs. Today, I want to share with you a valuable resource to use if your child has gotten involved in drugs in Tarrant County. If your teenager has been charged in juvenile court with their first drug offense, you need to ask about the Tarrant County Juvenile Drug Court Program.

The Basics of the Program

The Drug Court Program in Tarrant County was launched in 1999. It was the first of its kind in the State of Texas. It is a voluntary program aimed at first time juvenile drug offenders. According to Tom Zaback, a Tarrant County juvenile probation officer and the supervisor of the program, 80% of the participants in Drug Court graduate the program successfully.

Juveniles in the program, and their parents, are required to commit a lot to Drug Court. This commitment to the program leads to a commitment to change, which contributes significantly to juveniles graduating from Drug Court and kicking their drug problem. While in Drug Court, which lasts for six months, juveniles and their parents will work closely with a probation officer and drug counselors in classes and groups that are tailored to meet the individual needs of each child.

The Process of the Juvenile Drug Court Program

Cases are screened automatically by the probation officers assigned to Drug Court to determine kids who may be appropriate for the program. However, if your child has been charged with a drug offense and you feel this may be a good option for him, you can ask your intake probation officer about being considered for inclusion in Drug Court.

Once a juvenile has been identified for the program, one of the Drug Court probation officers will schedule an intake with that child and his parents. During the intake appointment, the probation officer will explain the requirements of the program, get a social history from the family, and have the juvenile to take a drug test. The juvenile must also submit to a drug assessment during the screening process. This assessment will help to determine the level of that child’s drug problem and the recommended level of treatment needed. At the end of the screening, the probation officer will make a recommendation about whether that child should be allowed into Drug Court.

If a juvenile is recommended for Drug Court, the case is then sent to the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office Juvenile Unit for prosecution. The prosecutor will review the case and file the charges with the court. The Tarrant County Juvenile Court will then schedule the case for a drug court hearing. At that hearing, the juvenile must stipulate, or admit, to the charges. The judge will enter a judgment withheld, which means that the judge will note that there is sufficient evidence to adjudicate the juvenile delinquent (or find him guilty), but will not, at that time, actually adjudicate the juvenile. The judge will then order him into the Drug Court Program.

Every juvenile in the program must come back to court for a judicial review at the 3-month mark and again at the end of the program. The purpose of this judicial review is for the judge to monitor the child’s progress in Drug Court. At the end of the six-month program, if the child has successfully completed all requirements, the judge will deny the prosecutor’s petition and order the child’s offense record to be sealed immediately. This is a huge benefit to the child because it means that he can honestly say to anyone asking in the future that he has not been charged or adjudicated for a drug offense. Sealing one’s record effectively erases it from existence.

The Requirements of the Tarrant County Juvenile Drug Court Program

As I mentioned above, while in Drug Court, a kid will be required to work with a probation officer and drug counselor to resolve any problems that he is facing with regards to drugs. There are other conditions that a juvenile in the program is required to follow, which are similar to the conditions of traditional probation. Some of these conditions are: no drugs, go to school, be honest, and attend treatment regularly. If a kid violates the terms of his Drug Court agreement, a progress report will be sent to the judge. If it is determined that a juvenile has violated the terms of the program to the extent that he is kicked out, he will be required to return to court for a disposition hearing. At this court hearing, the judge will enter a finding that the juvenile is adjudicated of the drug offense and then proceed to determine the appropriate punishment, or disposition, for the drug violation. This may result in the child being placed on traditional probation, being ordered to attend an in-patient drug treatment program, or in extreme cases, being sentenced to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. Additionally, a driver’s license suspension will usually be ordered.

The Tarrant County Juvenile Drug Court is a wonderful program designed to help kids who are charged with a first-time drug offense. Its purpose is to help juveniles work through their drug problems while giving them a second chance to keep their juvenile record intact. The program is very successful. It requires a high level of commitment from the juveniles and parents who are in it, but that commitment is rewarded with a true change in the behavior, attitude, and lifestyle of that child. If your child is struggling with drugs, it is worth asking whether the Tarrant County Drug Court Program can help.

What Every Parent Needs to Know About Drug Crimes and the Juvenile Justice Process

One of the most common way for teenagers to run afoul of the law is with drugs. Between peer pressure, synthetic drugs, and confusion over possession vs. ownership, there are many pitfalls surrounding the topic of drugs for kids. Many times, parents aren’t even aware their child has been exposed to drugs until that child is in trouble. Here are some basic things that every parents needs to know about kids and drugs before it’s too late.

Levels of Drug Offenses and Ranges of Punishment in Texas

In Texas, criminal offenses are divided into two major categories: Felonies and Misdemeanors, with felonies being the more serious. Except for possession of small amounts of marijuana or prescription drugs, all other drug offenses in Texas are felonies. This means that this is a very big deal if your child is arrested for drugs.

In the juvenile system, the punishment for misdemeanors ranges from nothing up to probation until that child’s 18th birthday. This probation can be served out at home. However, if appropriate, the court can order the child to a treatment facility, boys’ ranch, or some other kind of placement as part of the probation.

The punishment options for felonies in the juvenile system, like for misdemeanors, include doing nothing and probation up to a child’s 18th birthday (with or without placement outside of the home). For felonies, however, the court also can commit a child to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD), which is the prison system in Texas for kids. A commitment to TJJD can last up until a child’s 19th birthday.

Synthetic Drugs - A Moving Target

Some of the most popular drugs in use today are synthetic or designer drugs. They go by a variety of nicknames including K2, bath salts, and Spice. These particular drugs are especially dangerous for a number of reasons. First, because they are a chemically altered variation of an illegal drug, they are legal in many cases. The legislature is still struggling to write the laws in such a way to criminalize all of these variations. As they make one chemical formula illegal, the chemists making these drugs alter it to escape prosecution. The law is making headway in this field, but it is a slow process. Because of this loophole, many of these synthetic drugs are legally sold in stores and over the internet. This makes it very easy for kids to get their hands on them.

The second reason why these drugs are particularly dangerous is because there is no way for a user to know what exactly is in the dose they are taking due to the rapidly changing chemical alterations that are being made to stay ahead of the law. The K2 your child takes today may be drastically different from the dose he took last week. There is also no way to know what side effects a specific chemical combination will have on a particular person or even the human body generally.

Part of the reason why these drugs are so popular with kids is because it is almost impossible to detect them. Because of the quickly changing chemical makeups of these drugs, it’s difficult to develop a drug test that can detect them all. Additionally, most parents have never heard of these drugs, which makes it easier for kids to get away with using them without their parents realizing what they are doing. This difficulty in detecting these drugs makes it more likely for kids to abuse these particular substances.

Prescription Drugs

Another category of drugs that has risen in popularity with teenagers is prescription drugs. These are used frequently by kids because they are easy to get their hands on. All they have to do is to go to the medicine cabinet at home and help themselves to whatever drugs are on the shelf. It doesn’t matter what the prescription is for or who it belongs to, it can be abused by kids. Teens have been known to sell and/or use pills prescribed for everything from ADD to depression to high blood pressure. When parents are unaware of the potential for kids to take these medicines, they are unlikely to secure them in order to keep them away from their teenagers. There have been several cases recently in Tarrant County where kids have been arrested at school for illegally selling or possessing a prescription drug that they took from their parents.

Ownership vs. Possession

When it comes to the drug laws, many kids are confused about the difference between ownership vs. possession. The law makes it illegal to possess drugs, regardless of who owns them. In fact, because drugs are considered “contraband,” the law doesn’t consider anyone to “own” them. Many kids, when busted for possessing drugs, will say, “But it’s not mine. I was just holding it for my friend.” They don’t understand that this means they are breaking the law, not their friend. Possession is defined as having care, custody, and control of something. This means that if you have the drugs in your pocket, you are in possession of them whether you “own” them or not.

Many “good kids” who wouldn’t dream of committing a crime will get caught holding drugs for their friends. Because they don’t understand that, if caught, they will be the guilty party and not their friend, they agree to hold onto the drugs for their buddy. It’s important that parents talk to their kids and explain this aspect of the law and the effect it can have.

Common Situations Where Kids Encounter Drugs

As I said at the beginning, drugs are a common reason why kids find themselves in the juvenile justice system and in alternative school for a period of time. It is a slippery slope that many teenagers find themselves on before they even realize what has happened. Below are some of the most common places for kids to encounter drugs.

1. School
Our kids spend a good deal of their time at school. By the time a kid gets into middle school and high school, a big chunk of their social circle is centered around school. School is also the place where they are likely to encounter a wide variety of different people. So, it’s no wonder, that it is also the place where many kids first encounter drugs. Not only do the school administrators and teachers have to be on the alert for drugs in school, but parents also need to be aware and be proactive in preparing kids to walk away when they encounter drug activity in the school environment.

2. Friends
When kids are in their preteen and teenage years, peer pressure is a very powerful force. Many kids are first exposed to drugs by their friends. Therefore, it is important, as parents, to know our kids’ friends and to be around them enough to pick up on whether these friends have a problem with drugs before our kids follow the same path. It’s also important for parents to consistently work on having that open communication with their kids so that, when the time comes, your kids can feel comfortable coming to talk to you about drugs and friends. Kids also need to know that if they are ever asked to hold onto to drugs for their friends, that they must say no, even if it means losing a friend over it.

3. Cars
Cars present a tricky scenario for kids when it comes to drugs. If your teen gets into the car with someone who has drugs, it is very possible that your child will get charged with the drugs if they are pulled over by police. When police and prosecutors are looking at who within a car to charge with possession of the drugs, they will many times look to the person who was sitting the closest to the drugs. If someone else in the car drops their stash of drugs near your child, then it may appear that your child was the one in possession.

This is a situation where parents need to talk to their children about how easy it is for them to be in a car with others and be held responsible for the actions of those other people. Kids need to be very careful about who they get into a car with. Parents need to prepare their kids to make the right decision when confronted with whether to get in a car with someone or not.

Conclusion

While it is common for otherwise “good kids” to get in trouble with the law when it comes to drugs, it is not inevitable. If parents take the time to educate themselves and their kids about the pitfalls that drugs can create, they can help their teenagers to avoid getting involved in the juvenile justice system.

About the Author

Christy Dunn is a writer and attorney licensed to practice in Texas. She was a prosecutor for 15 years. The last five years of her prosecutorial career was spent in the Juvenile Division of the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office. She has tried over 20 juvenile cases in Texas and multiple certification hearings. She was part of the multidisciplinary team that created a Project SAFeR.

Between the Driver and Two Passengers, who is in Possession of the Drugs Found in the Middle Compartment in Plain View?

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently handed down an opinion dealing with legal sufficiency of evidence in the context of possession of a controlled substance when it was not found in the exclusive possession of the defendant. The issue facing the Court was whether Appellant Tate intentionally or knowingly possessed methamphetamine by exercising “control, management or care” of the methamphetamine and he knew it was methamphetamine. Tex. Penal Code §1.07(a)(39). The Court found that a rational jury could infer that the owner and driver of a vehicle possessed the controlled substance found in the vehicle in plain view even when there were two other passengers.

Tate v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

The Facts—Trial Court Found Sufficient Evidence

Tate was pulled over by Detective Beckham due to his outstanding warrants. When pulled over Tate had two passengers. Tate explained that he owned the vehicle but did not have any proof of ownership. Tate was arrested after officers confirmed his outstanding warrants. The police searched Tate, the two passengers, and their belongings, but did not find any weapons or contraband. During Officer Beckham’s inventory search of the vehicle, he found a syringe loaded with a substance later identified as .24 grams of methamphetamine. He found the syringe in "plain view" in a compartment underneath the air conditioner and heating controls.

Tate, the owner of the vehicle, was charged with possession of a controlled substance. At trial, Officer Beckham described the compartment as “directly to the right” of Tate, accessible to Tate and the front-seat passenger but not the backseat passenger. He also testified that even though he couldn’t tell exactly what the front-seat passenger was doing, he observed her moving a lot but never towards the compartment. Tate argued that one of the passengers put the syringe there when Tate was talking to Beckham at the rear of the vehicle. The trial court found Tate guilty, relying on Tate’s “self-purported” ownership of the vehicle and his proximity to the syringe.

The Court of Appeals Reversed the Trial Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeals held that there was “insufficient evidence to prove that Tate had intentionally and knowingly possessed methamphetamine.” The court rejected the proximity argument made by the trial court for two reasons:

1. There was insufficient evidence to show the syringe was in the car before Tate got out.
2. Officer Beckham observed the front-seat passenger moving a lot but couldn’t tell exactly what she was doing.

Additionally, the court said that since Tate’s ownership could not be proven it was insufficient evidence to prove possession.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Reverses the Court of Appeals—Holding Defendant’s Ownership and Control of Vehicle Where Controlled Substance was Found in Plain View and Within Defendant’s Reach is Sufficient Evidence to Convict for Possession of a Controlled Substance

The CCA held that a rational jury, with these facts, could reasonably infer that the syringe was in the car the entire time. In coming to that decision the Court relied on the fact that the jury believed Beckham’s testimony that he never saw her reach for the compartment, that the back-seat passenger could not reach it, Tate said he owned the vehicle, and that the syringe was found in plain view. Therefore, a rational jury could infer that Tate would be aware of items in his vehicle in plain view, thus find he intentionally or knowingly possessed the methamphetamine in the syringe.

In making this decision the Court relied on the Jackson standard: “Based on the combined and cumulative force of the evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom, was a jury rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). The Court found that the court of appeals incorrectly applied this standard. The Court pointed to a few links that the jury could reasonably rely on to find Tate guilty, which include:

1. the contraband was found in the vehicle that Tate owned and was driving;
2. the contraband was in plain view and conveniently accessible to Tate; and
3. the jury could reasonably believe Beckham’s testimony that the front-seat passenger did not reach over to the compartment and that the back-seat passenger could not reach the compartment.

Thus, when the standard is applied here a rational jury could find the evidence sufficient to find Tate intentionally or knowingly possessed the methamphetamine beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decision of the Criminal Court of Appeals—Evidence is Legally Sufficient Where a Rational Jury Could Infer Guild Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The CCA found that the evidence at trial was sufficient for the jury to reasonably find Tate guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the court of appeals overstepped its bounds in assessing the legal-sufficiency of the evidence.

The Fugitive, The Doctrine of Chances, and The Texas Rules of Evidence Collide: CCA Reviews a “Movie Plot” Defense Strategy

Dabney v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

Have you ever seen a movie like The Fugitive or Double Jeopardy where the main character finds himself in suspicious circumstances, only to be arrested and convicted, with the rest of the movie focused on proving the main character’s innocence? The defense counsel in Dabney v. State used this sort of analogy as the theme of his case to the jury—that the defendant was trapped in a bad movie plot and wasn’t actually guilty of any crime.

A Mystery Meth Lab Was Constructed at the Defendant's Home

Defense counsel made a memorable opening statement at Ronnie Dabney’s trial. Dabney had been arrested and charged with manufacturing meth. Defense counsel told the jury that the evidence would show that the meth lab found on Dabney’s property was set up by others, without his knowledge, and that Dabney arrived home mere moments before law enforcement arrived to discover the lab. Defense counsel offered a movie-plot defense theory, “Have you ever seen a movie like The Fugitive or Double Jeopardy where a person is found in suspicious circumstances and [they] arrest and convict them?” The defense added, “Ronnie Dabney has been living this movie where he’s innocent, found in suspicious circumstances, and he’s trying to prove himself not guilty.”

In response to the movie-plot defense theory, the State filed a brief arguing that it should be permitted to present evidence of a previous incident years ago, in which Dabney was present when a search warrant was executed on his property and an active meth lab was found. The State argued that the opening statements about the movie-plot amounted to a defensive theory, where evidence or mistake is at issue, worthy of a rebuttal argument supported by rebuttal evidence allowed under Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence.

Before trial, Dabney submitted a request for “notice” of the State’s intent to use evidence of past “extraneous” offenses under the Texas Rules of Evidence 404(b). The state failed to give proper notice of any 404(b) allegations. However, after hearing the defense opening statement, the State argued that the similarities between the case at bar and a previous case “rebutted [Dabney’s] defensive theory of accident or mistake” and requested permission to use the previous incident as 404(b) evidence to show the absence of mistake. The judge concluded the evidence of the previous crime was admissible. During closing remarks, the State averred, “[Dabney is] the unluckiest man in the world…[he] wants you to think [he] is Harrison Ford from the Fugitive…[with] a confluence of unfortunate events that frame him…but…common sense says it’s not an accident if it has happened twice…it’s the Doctrine of Chances.” Ronnie Dabney was found guilty of manufacturing meth and the jury sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment.

Dabney appealed to the Second Court of Appeals arguing the State failed to give proper notice of intent to use evidence of Dabney’s past crimes in its rebuttal argument under Texas evidentiary rules. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the evidence of Dabney’s past crimes was inadmissible without proper notice from the State. Dabney v. State, No. 02-12-00530-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11496 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, Oct. 16, 2014) (mem.op., not designated for publication). The State petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for review, arguing that notice is not required for rebuttal evidence because defensive theories cannot be predicted ahead of time. Dabney asserts that the State has a duty to anticipate all defensive issues that may come up in rebuttal.

The Court of Criminal Appeals considered the following issues (among others not discussed in this article):

(1) Did the court of appeals incorrectly add a “notice requirement” for rebuttal evidence?
(2) Did the court of appeals improperly ignore the overwhelming evidence of Dabney’s guilt?

Texas Evidentiary Rules Regarding Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence states

evidence of crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity [of the crime being prosecuted].” “However, [such evidence] may be admissible for other purposes, such as…intent, preparation…knowledge…absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon timely request by the [defendant], reasonable notice is given in advance of trial of intent to introduce in the State’s case.

A defense opening statement can open the door for the admission of extraneous-offense evidence to rebut the defensive theory presented in opening statements. Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

The Doctrine of Chances tells [the court] that highly unusual events are unlikely to repeat themselves inadvertently or by happenstance.” LaPaz v. State, 279 S.W. 3d 336, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, rather than of exclusions—it excludes only evidence that is offered solely for the purpose of proving bad character and conduct in conformity with that bad character. Id. at 343.

The CCA Holds that the Court of Appeals Improperly Added a Notice Requirement for Rebuttal Evidence

Here, the CCA reversed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that the court of appeals improperly added a notice requirement for rebuttal evidence and ignored the overwhelming evidence pointing to Dabney’s guilt. Because of the exception to the notice requirement when the defense opens the door to rebuttal evidence by presenting a defensive theory that the State may rebut using extraneous-offense evidence, the evidence of the prior crime was proper at trial, even without notice to defense beforehand. “To hold otherwise would impose upon the State the impossible task of anticipating, prior to the beginning of any trial, any and all potential defenses that a defendant may raise.” Also, there was no evidence that the prosecution acted in bad faith, or attempted to willfully avoid a discovery order. “Under the Doctrine of Chances, [Dabney’s] defense that he found himself in an unfortunate, highly unlikely situation becomes less credible when presented with evidence that he has been found in the exact same situation before.”

In sum, [Dabney] presented his defensive theory in opening statements and the State could use extraneous-offense evidence to rebut this theory in its case-in-chief, instead of waiting until the defense rested. Bass at 563. Defendants who are planning to use the “movie plot” defensive theory in the future, must be prepared to have the theory tested in front of a jury with 404(b) rebuttal evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts.