Chisum v. State
1998 WL 809511, 988 S.W.2d 244 (1999)
Rule of Law:
A trial court's error in failing to conduct a Daubert/Kelly gatekeeper hearing outside the jury's presence for expert testimony is harmless if the expert's qualifications and the scientific basis for the testimony are adequately established through other examination, and the defendant fails to preserve a specific objection regarding reliability or relevancy for appellate review. Additionally, when an accused is not in exclusive possession of a place where contraband is found, additional independent facts must affirmatively link the accused to the contraband to prove possession.
Facts:
- Law enforcement officers conducted a search of Russell Chisum's home and pickup truck.
- During the search, between four and 200 grams of cocaine were discovered hidden in Marlboro cigarette boxes in a utility closet within the house and in another cigarette package in an old pickup truck in the driveway.
- Russell Chisum was not in exclusive possession of his home; a woman named Angela Schmidt had recently resided there, and women's clothing was found in one of the bedrooms.
- Chisum claimed that Angela Schmidt, who smoked Marlboro Light cigarettes, may have planted the contraband in his home out of anger after he had previously expelled her for cocaine use. Most of the found cocaine was packaged in Marlboro Light cigarette boxes.
- Chisum admitted to officers that the cigarette boxes of contraband belonged to his brother, Eugene, and that his brother made him sell them.
- Chisum later directed officers to a cigarette package containing cocaine located in the old pickup truck.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Was the evidence legally and factually sufficient to affirmatively link Russell Chisum to the cocaine and support his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, despite his non-exclusive possession of the premises? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony regarding the composition of the alleged contraband without first conducting a Daubert/Kelly gatekeeper hearing outside the presence of the jury, and if so, was that error harmful, requiring reversal? 3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to permit Russell Chisum to reopen the evidence to admit a "Trial Procedure Order" explaining why he could not call his brother Eugene as a witness?
Opinions:
Majority - ROSS, Justice
1. Yes, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to affirmatively link Russell Chisum to the cocaine and support his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The court applied the "affirmative links" test, recognizing Chisum was not in exclusive possession of the house. While some factors (like plain view, proximity, or presence at the search's start) were absent, several strong links were present: Chisum owned and had the right to possess the house, was living there, was aware the contraband was in the house, and admitted selling it for his brother. When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, these links made the evidence legally sufficient. The evidence was also factually sufficient, as the exculpatory evidence did not rise to a level that would make the conviction clearly wrong or unjust. 2. No, the trial court's admission of expert testimony without a Daubert/Kelly gatekeeper hearing, though error, did not constitute reversible harm in this case. The trial court erred by refusing Chisum's request to conduct a gatekeeper hearing and voir dire the expert, Charleen Voight, outside the jury's presence, as required by Kelly v. State and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (adopted in Texas by Jordan v. State). However, during defense counsel's voir dire examination of Voight in front of the jury, she provided sufficient foundation for her qualifications (B.S. in chemistry, extensive on-the-job training, college classes in spectral analysis) and explained the scientific basis of her testing method (infrared spectrometer, matching spectra to known samples). This testimony was adequate to show the evidence was based on a valid scientific theory, applied a valid technique, and she had the expertise to apply it. Furthermore, Chisum failed to preserve a specific complaint about the relevancy or reliability of the scientific evidence for appellate review, only making a general objection. Because the admissible evidence was ultimately placed before the jury, and a substantial right of the accused was not affected, the error was deemed harmless under Tex. R.App. P. 44.2(b). 3. No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit Russell Chisum to reopen the evidence. Chisum never attempted to call his brother, Eugene, as a witness at trial. Since the initial step of attempting to call the witness was not taken, the court could not find error in refusing to allow Chisum to present the jury with information indicating he was unable to call his brother due to "the Rule" (sequestration of witnesses).
Analysis:
This case serves as a crucial reminder that trial courts must fulfill their gatekeeping role for scientific expert testimony under the Daubert/Kelly standards, including holding preliminary hearings outside the jury's presence. However, it also illustrates that procedural errors, like failing to conduct such a hearing, may be deemed harmless if the foundational requirements for admissibility are eventually met through other means (e.g., in-jury voir dire) and if the defendant fails to make a specific objection. For drug possession cases, the decision reinforces the comprehensive application of the "affirmative links" test in scenarios involving non-exclusive possession, establishing that an admission of selling the contraband for another can be a strong affirmative link.
