Whose stuff is it?
Often people are accused of possession of an illegal substance or item, but there are multiple parties present where the substance or item is found. 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 under Texas law relates to allegations of possession of an illegal item or substance, and 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 can be done through affirmative links, which are 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 at a location where an illegal item or substance is discovered by law enforcement, 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 particular individual to the item or substance.
However, Texas law recognizes a theory of joint possession, which can apply when multiple parties share control over the item or substance. Joint possession requires that each party have knowledge of the illegal item or substance and the ability to exercise control over it. This can be shown through evidence of shared access, such as when the item or substance is found in a common area or when there is evidence of a joint enterprise or agreement to possess the item or substance.
When multiple parties are present at a location where an illegal item or substance is discovered, the prosecution must show that each individual had possession or shared control over the item or substance, and joint possession may be used as a theory of liability in these situations.
When there is an allegation of 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: Whether the defendant was in close 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 the defendant engaged in conduct 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, and their relevance and weight may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Texas courts will generally require the prosecution to prove affirmative links beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish a defendant’s possession of an illegal item or substance.
Important Developments in Texas relating to Affirmative Links
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charged with a crime? Call for a FREE consultation!
281-684-3500
CLIENT REVIEWS OF LEGRANDE LAW
**HERE**
Top 40 under 40 in Criminal Defense | AVVO 10.0 | Martindale-Nolo | Lawyers.com | Justia