Ortega v. State

¶1concurring and dissenting.

¶2I dissent from the majority’s resolution of point of error two.

¶3Under the point of error two, the appellant argues the amount of recovered cocaine was “too small to support a conviction.” The police recovered 1.1 milligrams of pure cocaine, which was visible to the naked eye, and was susceptible to testing. The chemist testified that to test the substance, he had to wash the baggy to get enough liquid, and the test destroyed the evidence. In Coleman v. State, 545 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), the court held 5.06 milligrams of cocaine was not enough to support a conviction.1 The amount recovered in this case was less than the amount in Coleman.

¶4I would sustain the appellant’s point of error two and instruct the trial court to render a judgment of acquittal.