Whose stuff is it?
Affirmative links are a concept a skilled attorney can use to fight a possession case and win. LeGrande Law has won dozens of possession cases on this basis – make sure your lawyer knows about affirmative links!
The concept of affirmative links refers to evidence that links a defendant to the item or substance in question.
In Texas, possession of an illegal item or substance requires more than mere proximity to the item or substance. Rather, the prosecution must show that the defendant exercised care, control, and management over the item or substance. This is affirmative links. Or, specific facts and circumstances that demonstrate that the defendant had possession of the item or substance.
Affirmative links may include things like fingerprints or DNA evidence on the item. Statements by the defendant admitting to possession. Or, other evidence that shows the defendant had control over the item or substance.
When multiple parties are present, the prosecution must show that each individual had possession of the item or substance. This can be difficult to do if there is no direct evidence linking a someone to the item or substance.
Affirmative Links: Joint Possession
However, Texas law recognizes joint possession, which can apply when multiple parties share control over the item or substance. Joint possession requires each party have knowledge of the item or substance and the ability to exercise control over it. They consider shared access. Such as when the item is in a common area. Or, when there is evidence of a joint enterprise or agreement to possess the item or substance.
When there is joint possession of an illegal item or substance, Texas courts may consider the following affirmative links:
- Knowledge: Whether the defendant had knowledge of the illegal item or substance.
- Control: Whether the defendant had control over the illegal item or substance, such as holding or hiding it.
- Proximity: The proximity to the illegal item or substance, such as being in the same room or car.
- Association: Whether the defendant associated with others who had possession of the illegal item or substance.
- Conduct: Whether conduct is consistent with possession of the illegal item or substance, such as selling or using it.
- Ownership: Whether the defendant owned or had a financial interest in the illegal item or substance.
These affirmative links are not exhaustive. Their relevance and weight may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Texas courts generally require the prosecution to prove affirmative links beyond a reasonable doubt.
Important Developments in Texas relating to Affirmative Links
Presence at location
Geter v. State (1984) – The court held that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish guilt and that the prosecution must prove affirmative links between the defendant and the crime.
Castillo v. State (1999) – The court held that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to prove possession of illegal drugs and that the prosecution must show affirmative links between the defendant and the drugs.
Clay v. State (2001) – The court held that mere presence at a location where drugs are found, without any evidence of affirmative links, is not enough to establish possession of the drugs.
Past Drug Use
Baker v. State (2002) – The court held that evidence of a defendant’s past drug use, without any evidence of current possession, is not enough to establish possession of illegal drugs.
Proximity
Mumphrey v. State (2006) – The court held that evidence of a defendant’s proximity to drugs, without any evidence of affirmative links, is not enough to establish possession of the drugs.
Fingerprints or DNA
Thomas v. State (2007) – The court held that the presence of a defendant’s DNA on a bag of drugs is sufficient evidence to establish affirmative links between the defendant and the drugs.
Clayton v. State (2000) – The court held that the presence of a defendant’s fingerprints on a bag of drugs is sufficient evidence to establish affirmative links between the defendant and the drugs.
Paraphernalia
Armendariz v. State (2010) – The court held that evidence of a defendant’s possession of drug paraphernalia, without any evidence of current possession of illegal drugs, is not enough to establish possession of the drugs.
Access to location drugs found
Pruneda v. State (2017) – The court held that evidence of a defendant’s access to a location where drugs are found, without any evidence of affirmative links, is not enough to establish possession of the drugs.
Association with group
Ruiz v. State (1996) – The court held that evidence of mere association with a group of people does not prove possession of illegal drugs and that the prosecution must show affirmative links between the defendant and the drugs.
Does your lawyer know how to fight an illegal search and win?
Results matter and we win possession cases for our clients. LeGrande Law has a track record of having evidence suppressed, cases dismissed, and not guilty verdicts. Call now for a free attorney consultation.