For Brooks:Here's a link to the CCA case info.The Court of Appeals erred in holding the evidence was legally sufficient to establish appellant had the intent to distribute cocaine, where the court found the same evidence was factually insufficient to establish the necessary intent.For the State:1. Is there any meaningful distinction between legal sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia and factually sufficiency review when that review is limited to the weakness of the evidence in the abstract and, if so, does it escape review in this Court?
2. Did the Tenth Court of Appeals ignore its duty to adequately explain why the evidence, though legally sufficient, is so weak as to render the jury's verdict clearly wrong and manifestly unjust?
Police responded to a bar to investigate a claim that there was an African-American male wearing a red cap there with a gun. Brooks matched the description and the officers asked him to go outside with them. He refused with colorful language. One of the officers tried to grab his arm, and Brook jerked his arm away and began running. On the way out, Brooks threw pastic baggies towards the pool table. After collecting Brooks, police recovered a baggie of marijuana from under the pool table and a baggie containing crack and ecstacy in the ball return.
Brooks, of course, told a different story, namely that the police had not gotten close enough to grab him and they had tasered him while he was trying to pull out his baggie of marijuana to discard. A drug enforcement unit investigator testified that dealers usually carry more than two rocks, but a gram of crack usually indicates a dealer. He also identified other ways to tell if a person is a dealer, but none of those factors were present in this case.
The court of appeals reversed the possession of cocaine case was legally sufficient, but factually insufficient. According to the court of appeals the only evidence of the intent to deliver came from the quantity of the substance itself. The evidence was factually sufficient because the quantity was small and there was no evidence that this was a high crime area, that the other drugs had been packaged similarly, and that Brooks had a large amount of cash. [The court of appeals did affirm the possession of ecstasy case.]
Chief Justice Gray concurred and dissented with a note (rather than a separate opinion). C.J. Gray noted that the possession of three different types of drugs in a public place in combination with the testimony about the amount support the jury's determination of intent to deliver. He also noted that the court of appeals failed to detail the evidence to clearly explain why it was legally sufficient but not factually sufficient. Here's a link to the court of appeals case info if you're interested.
[I could try to tease out some explanation about why THIS case deserves factual sufficiency consideration . . . but I'm not going to. It's just not worth it any more, and a few of the judges at the CCA have recognized as much. I suppose there's some interest in setting out a rule that intent to deliver can be inferred from just the amount, but why also grant the State's petition. At this point, factual sufficiency review has become like a really toxic relationship that you can't seem to stop explaining to just about everyone you meet. It's tiresome and does no one any good. And frankly, I'm just not that into you factual sufficiency review.]
