¶1dissenting.
¶2I must respectfully dissent from the reversal of appellant’s conviction. In my opinion, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that the appellant knowingly possessed a controlled substance.
¶3Appellant’s sole point of error alleges that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the matchbox contained a sufficient amount of cocaine to be measurable as well as detectable by the naked eye and therefore knowingly possessed. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 658 S.W.2d 623, 627 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). The majority obscures the facts of this case by omission. While they state that the appellant was searched by a police officer who found the matchbox which was later tested for cocaine residue, the majority neglects to recognize that the arresting officer must have seen some residue in the matchbox in order to have enough suspicion to order lab analysis.
¶4Essential to the majority’s ultimate conclusion is the fact that there was no explicit statement by the arresting officer or the examining chemist that they were able to see the residue with their naked eyes. In addition, the majority places emphasis on the failure of the examining chemist to testify whether or not the cocaine was seen under a microscope or by the naked eye. The majority deems this uncertainty to mean that the cocaine was observable only under a microscope; however, this omission could just as easily be interpreted to support the conclusion that the cocaine was seen by the naked eye.
¶5Further, the majority chooses to abandon our earlier holding in Chavez v. State. 768 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, pet. ref’d). In that case, the arresting officer found a plastic baggie with a white powder film inside. Id.Under analysis, a mere 0.5 milligrams of cocaine was able to be measured which we deemed sufficient to establish knowing possession. Id. at 367. Contrary to the majority’s contention, the cocaine in that case was not able to be measured without the help of a microscope. Id.It was immeasurable without the aid of a more elaborate analysis under a spectrophotometer. Id.
¶6Much like the Chavezcase, the arresting officer in this instance was suspicious about what he saw in the matchbox and had it tested for cocaine residue. The test yielded 0.6 milligrams of cocaine, a larger amount than was found in Chavez. As noted by the majority, “[t]he standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” In light of the facts, a rational trier of fact could clearly have found that the arresting officer who took the matchbox to the HPD chemist for analysis must have seen something to raise his suspicion that cocaine residue was present.
¶7For the reasons stated above, I would affirm the conviction of the appellant because there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the cocaine residue was able to be seen, measured, and therefore raise the inference of knowing possession.