Factors to Consider in Drug Possession Cases

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