Estrada v. State

I respectfully dissent with the majority’s holding on appellant’s ground of error number three.

The majority concedes that the evidence of both intent and possession is purely circumstantial. I agree.

The majority has decided that the “close juxtaposition” rule is applicable and thus appellant was not entitled to a circumstantial evidence charge. However, examination of the cases dealing with circumstantial evidence of possession leads to the conclusion that the rule is inapplicable in this case.

Cases that have held a circumstantial evidence charge was not required involved facts that resulted…