X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Connie McCoy appeals from her conviction by a jury of the offense of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount less than one gram. The trial court assessed her punishment at 250 days in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division. McCoy made no objection to testimony showing that Midland police officers responded to a domestic disturbance call made by McCoy’s husband Chris to the apartment she shared with him or to testimony that, when Chris indicated his desire that she leave the apartment, she proceeded to tell the police officers present where methamphetamine was hidden in the apartment. Robby Mobley, a detective with the Midland Police Department, testified without objection that he was called to the apartment after narcotics had been found. He testified, again without objection, that McCoy said that she and her husband “had worked for a prison before and knew various locations and good places to hide the drugs.” Just after that testimony was elicited, counsel for McCoy asked for a bench conference. McCoy’s counsel said, “It is obvious to me by the time that this witness arrived at this apartment, Connie McCoy was in custody. There has been no predicate that a Miranda warning was ever given.” The prosecutor responded, “She wasn’t in custody yet. It wasn’t until after they found the drugs in the I can ask him.” At that point, McCoy’s counsel responded, “Okay.” The court then instructed the prosecutor to make sure she did not go “into the other stuff that he has objected to.” When questioning of Detective Mobley continued, he testified that the arresting officer’s statement to the effect that McCoy was handcuffed after methamphetamine was found in the bathroom probably comported with his memory. He related that McCoy was describing places in the apartment where drugs might be hidden. He testified without objection that, based on the information that McCoy gave them, officers found a small package of methamphetamine poked down the shower rod in the bathroom and that McCoy admitted to being a drug user. On cross-examination, Detective Mobley said he would assume that McCoy was being detained when he arrived. He acknowledged that he had not given McCoy a Miranda warning. Shortly after this testimony, McCoy’s counsel asked the trial court for an instruction to the jury to disregard everything McCoy told Detective Mobley because she was in custody and no Miranda warning was given. The trial court overruled the request. Subsequently, Detective Mobley testified that McCoy was talking to the officers and “came out more or less telling where the places in the apartment to look.” When McCoy’s counsel asked Detective Mobley if McCoy responded to what he was asking her, he replied, “I wasn’t asking her. She was just responding on her own.” HOLDING:Affirmed. Detective Mobley testified as to more than one statement made by McCoy after he arrived, all without objection. If the request to disregard the statements is construed as an objection, it was untimely, as was the request for an instruction to disregard. The court holds that nothing is presented for review. McCoy contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain syringes into evidence because the evidence was more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403. The syringes were found in a drawer that contained Q-tips, makeup, and cotton swabs, all indicating that a female used the drawer, the court states. The court takes judicial notice that illegal substances are frequently administered by injection. Consequently, the evidence was highly relevant as to whether McCoy knowingly possessed the drugs located in the apartment she shared with her husband. While this evidence might impress the jury, it would not be in an irrational way. It took little time to develop this evidence. Counsel for McCoy raised the issue of whether McCoy possessed the methamphetamine in question, both in voir dire and in his closing statement. The issue of McCoy’s possession was in dispute. Because McCoy’s husband also occupied the premises, it was significantly important for the State to show a link between McCoy and the methamphetamine found. The court holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling McCoy’s Rule 403 objection. The court sees nothing about the presence of the syringes that would confuse the jury or cause it to speculate that McCoy used or was in possession of other drugs. OPINION:Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.