## Facts

- San Antonio police arrested three people in a van after observing suspected drug activity; officers recovered crack cocaine discarded by one occupant and additional crack cocaine in plain view inside the van.
- One arrestee indicated more drugs would be found at 923 Lombrano; the resident, Cynthia Priestley, signed a written consent to search the home.
- Officers approached the house and saw Oliver Evans, Jr. inside through a storm door, seated and watching television while on the phone; the main door was unlocked.
- When officers entered and asked Evans if he knew why they were there, he responded, “Drugs.”
- In front of Evans, within about one foot of his arm, officers saw in plain view numerous baggies and pill bottles containing cocaine, including both powder and rock forms.
- The cocaine weighed about fourteen grams and had an estimated street value of about $1,300.
- Officers found men’s and women’s clothing and mail addressed to Evans in the home, and seized $160 from Evans’s pocket.
- Priestley stated the cocaine was hers and not Evans’s; Evans’s ex-wife testified Evans was staying at the home only briefly and usually lived elsewhere.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Evans knowingly exercised care, custody, control, or management over the cocaine found in a residence he did not exclusively possess.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Evans possessed the cocaine.
- The court concluded the intermediate appellate court misapplied legal-sufficiency review by failing to view the record in the light most favorable to the verdict and by reweighing credibility and competing inferences.
- The court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and reinstated the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

## Legal Principles

- To prove unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State must show the accused (1) exercised actual care, custody, control, or management over the contraband and (2) knew it was contraband.
- When the accused does not have exclusive possession of the place where contraband is found, the State must show additional, independent facts (“affirmative links”) connecting the accused to the contraband so a jury may reasonably infer knowledge and control.
- Legal-sufficiency review requires considering all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asking whether any rational factfinder could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Appellate courts may not substitute their credibility judgments for the jury’s; the jury may accept or reject any witness’s testimony and draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence.
- Affirmative links may be established by the totality of circumstances, including proximity to and visibility of contraband, statements showing awareness, evidence of connection to the premises, and other circumstances supporting an inference of knowing control.

## Conclusion

Because Evans was alone in the home with a substantial quantity of cocaine in plain view within arm’s reach, acknowledged “Drugs” as the reason for police presence, and had indicia of connection to the residence, a rational jury could find knowing possession despite Priestley’s claim of ownership; the conviction was reinstated under proper legal-sufficiency review.


Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)