Meyers v. State
665 S.W.2d 590 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an accused is not in exclusive possession of the premises where contraband is found, the State must present additional independent facts and circumstances that affirmatively link the accused to the contraband to prove possession.
Facts:
- Floyd Miller Meyers resided in an apartment with a woman named Tammy Napolean.
- On the morning of June 24, 1980, police executed a search warrant at the apartment, finding Meyers and Napolean in bed.
- Police discovered methamphetamine and syringes in the living room and kitchen areas, including on an air conditioner, a nearby table, and on top of the refrigerator.
- Officers also found personal items linking Meyers to the apartment, such as clothes, mail, and phone bills in his name.
- No contraband was found on Meyers's person or in the bedroom where he was located.
- At trial, Tammy Napolean testified that the methamphetamine belonged to her.
- Napolean also testified that Meyers had driven her to a friend's house earlier, but she acquired the drugs after he left and received a ride back from someone else.
Procedural Posture:
- Floyd Miller Meyers was indicted for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine.
- A jury in the trial court found Meyers guilty.
- The jury found the enhancement paragraphs of the indictment to be not true.
- The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years of confinement.
- Meyers, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance when the accused resides at the premises with another person, the contraband is found in common areas, and the other person claims ownership of the contraband?
Opinions:
Majority - Gonzalez, Justice
No, the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction. To establish unlawful possession when the accused does not have exclusive control of the premises, the State must prove an affirmative link between the accused and the contraband. Merely residing at a location where drugs are found is insufficient, especially when another occupant claims ownership. The court rejected the State's argument that providing food and lodging made Meyers a party to Napolean's possession, stating mere presence or knowledge of an offense does not create criminal liability. The court then analyzed the factors for direct possession and found them lacking: the contraband was not in close proximity to Meyers or in plain view from his location, there was no evidence of needle marks, he was not under the influence, he made no incriminating statements, and no fingerprints linked him to the items. Therefore, the State failed to establish the necessary affirmative links to prove Meyers exercised care, control, and management over the methamphetamine.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the 'affirmative links' doctrine in Texas jurisprudence for constructive possession cases involving non-exclusive occupancy. It clarifies that merely being a resident or co-tenant is not enough to establish control over contraband found in common areas. The decision sets a high evidentiary bar for prosecutors, requiring them to produce specific, independent facts connecting the defendant directly to the drugs, rather than relying on their connection to the premises. This precedent protects individuals from being convicted based on mere presence or association with another person who possesses contraband.
