affirmative links rule in Texas

2005Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319 ; Martinets v. State , 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex. App.–Austin 1994, no pet.).

2003Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ; Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex.App.-Austin 1994, no pet.).

2026The affirmative links rule is routinely employed to establish possession when the accused is not in exclusive possession of the place where the drugs are found, and it is designed “to protect the innocent bystander from conviction based solely upon his fortuitous proximity to someone else’s drugs.” Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406 .

2025The affirmative links rule is routinely employed to establish possession when the accused is not in exclusive possession of the place where the drugs are found; it is designed “to protect the innocent bystander from conviction based solely upon his fortuitous proximity to someone else’s drugs.” Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406 .

2025Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 414 (quoting Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12); see also Redman, 2023 WL 4373534 , at *4 (“The affirmative links rule is routinely employed to establish possession when the accused is not in exclusive possession of the place where the drugs are found; it is designed ‘to protect the innocent bystander from conviction based solely upon [her] fortuitous proximity to someone else’s drugs.’” 6 (alteration in original) (quoting Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406 ).

2016DISSENTING OPINION The court of appeals correctly applied the affirmative links standard from Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim.

2012State, 214 S.W.3d 522, 529 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd) ("Because the affirmative-links rule is only a shorthand expression for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, instructing the jury on the affirmative-links rule would be improper.”).

2012App. 2008) (trial court improperly commented on weight of evidence by instructing jury that it was permitted to consider the defendant’s refusal to submit a breath test); Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522, 529 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d) (“Because the affirmative-links rule is only a shorthand expression for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, instructing the jury on the affirmative-links rule would be improper.”).

2015Lassaint, 79 S.W.3d at 740 (citing Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 34 185, 188 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994, no pet.); Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995)); See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.Crim.App. 201Q)(Jackson standard controls in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence challenges).

2007Thus the affirmative-links rule is merely a shorthand expression “to identify what must be prov *530 en in a prosecution for the possession of illegal drugs.” Id.

2011Young v. State, 242 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.App.-- Tyler 2007, no pet.); Savery v. State, 782 S.W.2d 321, 327-28 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1989), aff’d, 819 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).

2011Young v. State , 242 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.App.--Tyler 2007, no pet.); Savery v. State , 782 S.W.2d 321, 327-28 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1989), aff’d , 819 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).

2015Cf., e.g., Henry v. State, 409 S.W.3d 37, 43 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (finding $7,000 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis); Cisneros v. State, 290 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (finding $2,243 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis). 10 demeanor may be examples of consciousness of guilt,” nervousness “is a tenuous link to the contraband because most people are somewhat nervous when confronted by a police officer.” 79 S.W.3d at 743 .

2015Cf., e.g., Henry v. State, 409 S.W.3d 37, 43 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (finding $7,000 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis); Cisneros v. State, 290 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (finding $2,243 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis). 10 demeanor may be examples of consciousness of guilt,” nervousness “is a tenuous link to the contraband because most people are somewhat nervous when confronted by a police officer.” 79 S.W.3d at 743 .

2015Cf., e.g., Henry v. State, 409 S.W.3d 37, 43 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (finding $7,000 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis); Cisneros v. State, 290 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (finding $2,243 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis). 10 demeanor may be examples of consciousness of guilt,” nervousness “is a tenuous link to the contraband because most people are somewhat nervous when confronted by a police officer.” 79 S.W.3d at 743 .

2015Cf., e.g., Henry v. State, 409 S.W.3d 37, 43 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (finding $7,000 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis); Cisneros v. State, 290 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (finding $2,243 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis). 10 demeanor may be examples of consciousness of guilt,” nervousness “is a tenuous link to the contraband because most people are somewhat nervous when confronted by a police officer.” 79 S.W.3d at 743 .

2008Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522, 529-30 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd) (citing Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 799-800 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (improper comment on weight of evidence)); Gilbert, 874 S.W.2d at 297 ; Davila v. State, 749 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref'd) (jury charge would lead to confusion and distraction).

2008Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522, 529-30 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd) (citing Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 799-800 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (improper comment on weight of evidence)); Gilbert, 874 S.W.2d at 297 ; Davila v. State, 749 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref’d) (jury charge would lead to confusion and distraction).

2007See, e.g., Corpus v. State, 30 S.W.3d 35, 37-38 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm); Gaines v. State, 874 S.W.2d 733, 735-36 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm); Savery v. State, 782 S.W.2d 321, 327-28 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1989, pet. denied) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of child pornography); Young v. State, 752 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex.App.Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd) (applying

2007See, e.g. , Corpus v. State , 30 S.W.3d 35 , 37–38 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm) ; Gaines v. State , 874 S.W.2d 733 , 735–36 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm); Savery v. State , 782 S.W.2d 321 , 327–28 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, pet. denied) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of child pornography) ; Young v. State , 752 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, pet.

2007See, e.g., Corpus v. State, 30 S.W.3d 35, 37-38 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm); Gaines v. State, 874 S.W.2d 733, 735-36 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm); Savery v. State, 782 S.W.2d 321, 327-28 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1989, pet. denied) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of child pornography); Young v. State, 752 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex.App.Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd) (applying

2007See, e.g. , Corpus v. State , 30 S.W.3d 35 , 37–38 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm) ; Gaines v. State , 874 S.W.2d 733 , 735–36 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm); Savery v. State , 782 S.W.2d 321 , 327–28 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, pet. denied) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of child pornography) ; Young v. State , 752 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, pet.

2005We have not overlooked appellant’s argument that the evidence did not demonstrate compliance with the affirmative links test set out in Jenkins v. State, 76 S.W.3d 709, 712 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref’d); however, appellant made no objections to the charge and presents no charge error here.

2005We have not overlooked appellant’s argument that the evidence did not demonstrate compliance with the affirmative links test set out in Jenkins v. State, 76 S.W.3d 709, 712 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref’d); however, appellant made no objections to the charge and presents no charge error here.

2026Under the affirmative links rule, “[w]hen the contraband is not in the exclusive possession of the defendant, a fact finder may nonetheless infer that the defendant intentionally or knowingly possessed the contraband if there are sufficient independent facts and circumstances justifying such an inference.” Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 413-14 .

2025Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 414 (quoting Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12); see also Redman, 2023 WL 4373534 , at *4 (“The affirmative links rule is routinely employed to establish possession when the accused is not in exclusive possession of the place where the drugs are found; it is designed ‘to protect the innocent bystander from conviction based solely upon [her] fortuitous proximity to someone else’s drugs.’” 6 (alteration in original) (quoting Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406 ).

2015Cf., e.g., Henry v. State, 409 S.W.3d 37, 43 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (finding $7,000 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis); Cisneros v. State, 290 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (finding $2,243 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis). 10 demeanor may be examples of consciousness of guilt,” nervousness “is a tenuous link to the contraband because most people are somewhat nervous when confronted by a police officer.” 79 S.W.3d at 743 .

2015Cf., e.g., Henry v. State, 409 S.W.3d 37, 43 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (finding $7,000 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis); Cisneros v. State, 290 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (finding $2,243 to be “a large amount of cash” in an affirmative links analysis). 10 demeanor may be examples of consciousness of guilt,” nervousness “is a tenuous link to the contraband because most people are somewhat nervous when confronted by a police officer.” 79 S.W.3d at 743 .

2011See Jacobs, 245 S.W.3d at 525 (applying the affirmative links rule in a case involving possession of a gambling device).

2011See Jacobs , 245 S.W.3d at 525 (applying the affirmative links rule in a case involving possession of a gambling device).

2009See Tucker v. State , 183 S.W.3d 501, 510 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (listing factors relevant to an affirmative links analysis). (footnote: 6) More importantly, the jury heard the recording of Vanegas agreeing to transfer to Clint the same drugs—cocaine and methamphetamine—that the officers found in Clint’s pickup, and Clint could not have placed the drugs there because he and his pickup were searched upon his arrival at Wal-Mart.

2007This evidence lends direct support to the tenth factor in the affirmative links analysis, which asks “ whether other contraband or drug paraphernalia were present.” See Tucker , 183 S.W.3d at 510 .

2011Young v. State, 242 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.App.-- Tyler 2007, no pet.); Savery v. State, 782 S.W.2d 321, 327-28 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1989), aff’d, 819 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).

2011Young v. State , 242 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.App.--Tyler 2007, no pet.); Savery v. State , 782 S.W.2d 321, 327-28 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1989), aff’d , 819 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).

2009Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 240 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

2009Vasquez v. State , 67 S.W.3d 229, 240 (Tex. Crim.

2008Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522, 529-30 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd) (citing Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 799-800 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (improper comment on weight of evidence)); Gilbert, 874 S.W.2d at 297 ; Davila v. State, 749 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref'd) (jury charge would lead to confusion and distraction).

2008Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522, 529-30 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd) (citing Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 799-800 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (improper comment on weight of evidence)); Gilbert, 874 S.W.2d at 297 ; Davila v. State, 749 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref’d) (jury charge would lead to confusion and distraction).

2024The affirmative links rule is designed “to protect the innocent bystander from conviction based solely upon his fortuitous proximity to someone else’s drugs.” Id.

2023The affirmative links rule is designed “to protect the innocent bystander from conviction based solely upon his fortuitous proximity to someone else’s drugs.” Id.

2021App. 2011) (cleaned up). 7 prove Howard was the only person who possessed the meth or prove that he touched the baggy containing the meth; instead, all it had to prove was that Howard’s connection to the baggie of meth “was more than just fortuitous.” 17 To prove that, we follow the affirmative links rule and examine the evidence from which a reasonable factfinder can link the defendant to the drugs police find when they are not in a location that is under the defendant’s exclusive control.18 Examples of links considered to decide whether the evidence links the defendant to contraband that is

2021App. 2011) (cleaned up). 7 prove Howard was the only person who possessed the meth or prove that he touched the baggy containing the meth; instead, all it had to prove was that Howard’s connection to the baggie of meth “was more than just fortuitous.” 17 To prove that, we follow the affirmative links rule and examine the evidence from which a reasonable factfinder can link the defendant to the drugs police find when they are not in a location that is under the defendant’s exclusive control.18 Examples of links considered to decide whether the evidence links the defendant to contraband that is

2019App. 2011) (quoting Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 405 ). 22 Stout, 426 S.W.3d at 218 (citing James, 264 S.W.3d at 219 ); see Bates, 155 S.W.3d at 216-17. 11 While courts use the above factors to determine whether the defendant and the gun the State claims the defendant possessed are affirmatively linked, “‘the absence of various links does not constitute evidence of innocence to be weighed against the links present.’” 23 Instead, the logical force of the links must allow a reasonable jury to conclude the defendant possessed the gun. 24 In his brief, Barlow argues that the evidence is insufficient

2015See James, 264 S.W.3d at 218-19 ; Hawkins, 89 S.W.3d at 677 .

2016Id. at 281 n, 7 (citing Roberson, 80 S.W.3d at 741-42 ). • ARGUMENTS The State contends that, although the affirmative-links rule protects innocent bystanders from conviction based on only proximity to contraband, presence or proximity may satisfy the burden when combined with other evidence.

2011See Nhem, 129 S.W.3d at 699–700 (citing Roberson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 730, 736 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (noting that ―a factor that contributes to the sufficiency of the evidence in one case may be of little or no value in a different case.‖).

2009App. 2005) (citations omitted). 5 … Bates v. State, 155 S.W.3d 212 , 216–17 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.). 3 Further, as the State points out, in proving possession, when the accused is not in exclusive possession of the location where the contraband is found, the State must establish “additional independent facts and circumstances” that “link” the accused in such a manner that it can be concluded that the accused had knowledge of the contraband and exercised control over the contraband.6 Appellant points to two circumstances to suggest that he may not have had knowledge of the presence of

2005Bates, 155 S.W.3d at 216 (analyze sufficiency of evidence in felon in possession of firearm case under rules adopted for determining sufficiency of evidence in cases of unlawful possession of controlled substance); see Young v. State, 752 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, pet. ref’d) (same).

2007See, e.g., Corpus v. State, 30 S.W.3d 35, 37-38 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm); Gaines v. State, 874 S.W.2d 733, 735-36 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm); Savery v. State, 782 S.W.2d 321, 327-28 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1989, pet. denied) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of child pornography); Young v. State, 752 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex.App.Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd) (applying

2007See, e.g. , Corpus v. State , 30 S.W.3d 35 , 37–38 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm) ; Gaines v. State , 874 S.W.2d 733 , 735–36 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of firearm); Savery v. State , 782 S.W.2d 321 , 327–28 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, pet. denied) (applying affirmative links rule in case involving unlawful possession of child pornography) ; Young v. State , 752 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, pet.