Ameal Woods and Jordan Davis v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00818-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 7, 2025.

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00818-CV ——————————— AMEAL WOODS AND JORDAN DAVIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-39625

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal arises from an asset forfeiture proceeding filed by the State of

Texas against appellants Ameal Woods and Jordan Davis. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 59.02. After a six-day trial, a jury found that there was probable cause to seize appellants’ money and that the money, totaling $41,680.00, was contraband

intended to be used in the commission of the possession of a controlled substance.

On appeal, appellants Woods and Davis challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence, the denial of an innocent-owner jury instruction, and the constitutionality

of the burden of proof in asset forfeiture proceedings. We reverse and render.

Background

Sergeant Robert Wade and Deputy Elias Sandoval work for the Harris

County Sheriff’s Office. On May 14, 2019, Sergeant Wade and Deputy Sandoval

were working in the Crime Reduction Unit. Between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m., Sergeant

Wade and Deputy Sandoval observed Woods following a box truck too closely

while in heavy, rush hour traffic on I-10 East. Sergeant Wade, who was driving the

patrol vehicle, initiated the traffic stop. Upon making contact with Woods,

Sergeant Wade observed that Woods’s breathing was slow and labored and that

Woods was avoiding eye contact.

Sergeant Wade informed Woods that Sergeant Wade would be issuing a

warning, and had Woods exit Woods’s vehicle and join Sergeant Wade in the

patrol vehicle. Sergeant Wade testified that, when he questioned Woods about his

travel plans, Woods would pause and hesitate when asked certain questions.

Woods told Sergeant Wade that he was traveling to Katy to visit his nephew and

stay for a day or two, but did not know the nephew’s address. Woods also told

2 Sergeant Wade that he was considering purchasing a trailer in the Houston area,

but had no particular location or area in mind. Sergeant Wade began asking

questions about the contents of Woods’s vehicle, and Woods admitted to Sergeant

Wade that Woods had a large sum of cash, approximately $30,000, in the vehicle.

Sergeant Wade asked Woods for consent to search the vehicle, which Woods

permitted. Sergeant Wade did not find any trucking magazines or trucking sales

literature in the vehicle that might corroborate Woods’s stated intent to purchase

trucking equipment. Eventually, Sergeant Wade reached the trunk of the vehicle

where he located two bundles of cash, wrapped in plastic bags and duct tape. One

bag was covered with a substance the deputies identified as “transmission fluid.”

After finding the money, Sergeant Wade again asked Woods how much money he

had. Woods thought about it for a moment and told Sergeant Wade that one bundle

was $33,890 and the other bundle was $8,300. Woods told Wade that the money

had come from himself, his wife, and a nephew. Woods further explained that his

nephew told him to wrap the money so that he did not get robbed. Sergeant Wade

called the Harris County District Attorney’s Office to consult about the situation.

After the phone call, Sergeant Wade chose to investigate further, asking Woods to

call his wife to verify the story. When Sergeant Wade spoke with appellant Davis,

Woods’s wife, she denied knowledge of Woods’s traveling with large sums of

3 money. Sergeant Wade asked Woods for permission to look in his phone, and

Woods refused.

While Sergeant Wade searched Woods’s vehicle, Deputy Sandoval engaged

Woods in “small talk” in front of Sergeant Wade’s in-dash camera. Deputy

Sandoval’s body-worn camera did not capture this conversation, despite

department policy requiring him to record such interactions. He testified this was

due to an equipment malfunction. Deputy Sandoval testified that, during this

conversation, Woods told him that Woods’s cousin’s boyfriend was “involved in

the drug world,” and “that [Woods] was being paid to come to Houston with this

money because the trucking business was slow back home where he was from.”

According to Deputy Sandoval, Woods further told Deputy Sandoval that, “[o]nce

he arrived to Houston, he was to make a phone call to somebody to get further

instructions.” Deputy Sandoval’s recounting of his interaction and communication

with Woods changed from his initial offense report to his testimony at trial,

initially omitting Woods’s reference to a phone call for instructions.

Sergeant Wade and Deputy Sandoval proceeded to a police substation for a

narcotics-trained canine unit to conduct a sniff search of the seized money and to

count the money. According to the police officers’ count, there was $600 less in

the bundles of cash than appellant estimated. Despite department policy requiring

4 officers to record the counting of money, Sergeant Wade and Deputy Sandoval did

not do so.

Deputy Larry Graves works at the Harris County Sheriff’s Office as a canine

handler. His canine, “Dark,” was trained to detect cocaine, marijuana,

methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), and heroin.

When Dark locates one of those odors, he alerts Deputy Graves by sitting. Dark is

also trained to detect residual odors on items that have been in contact with one of

those five substances. Dark is not trained to alert to the odor of currency. On May

14, 2019, Deputy Graves and Dark responded to a call for service at the police

substation where Sergeant Wade and Deputy Sandoval brought the seized cash.

Dark searched a room where the seized cash was hidden and alerted upon locating

the hidden cash.

Woods testified at trial. According to Woods, of the $41,680 that he was

transporting on May 14, 2019, “[a] little over $6,000, $6,500” belonged to Davis.

Eight thousand dollars of the money belonged to Woods’s brother, Alonzo Woods.

Woods claimed that his niece, Tameka Woods Pinder, loaned him $13,000 of the

money. Two thousand dollars came from Woods’s nephew, Giovanni White, or

Woods. The balance of the money came from Woods’s “doing parties” and

“gambling, horseracing, working, income tax, stuff like that.” When speaking with

Sergeant Wade and testifying at trial, Woods explained that his nephew, TaDerrius

5 Woods, suggested that Woods wrap the bundles of money to avoid getting robbed.

However, in a sworn interrogatory, Woods answered that no one advised him to

wrap the money the way it was wrapped on May 14, 2019. In an affidavit dated

August of 2021, Woods averred that he kept “most of his money in cash and ha[d]

used vacuum sealers and tape like this for years to hide money around [his]

property.” Woods coated one of the bundles of money with fifth-wheel grease to

prevent worms from eating it, as he had intended to bury it.

According to Woods, between May 1, 2019 and May 14, 2019, Woods

perused truck papers and magazines and noticed that there were more trucks and

trailers for sale in Houston than back home in Mississippi. On May 13, 2019,

Woods rented a car because the air conditioning in his truck was not functioning.

At some point in the middle of the evening, Woods decided to take the trip to

Houston. Woods denied making the admissions that Deputy Sandoval claimed that

Woods made, explaining that he, Sergeant Wade, and Deputy Sandoval “were

talking about some TV-type stuff.”

Davis also testified. Woods and Davis have been a couple since 2006 and

have two daughters together. From 2006 to 2016, Davis worked at McDonald’s

making between $5.15 and $7.55 per hour. From 2016 to 2019, Davis worked at

Magnolia Bluffs Casino, making between $9 and $10 per hour. Woods asked

Davis a few times over the years for money to start a trucking business. The last

6 time Woods asked was a couple of weeks before the seizure on May 14, 2019.

Davis agreed and gave Woods the money between three and five days before

Woods’s trip to Houston.

Davis was aware of Woods’s burying money and had seen Woods package

money, but had not seen him bury or dig up money. Prior to her deposition in

2022, Davis did not know that Woods was going to Houston on May 14, 2019.

Davis was unaware of the bundles of money that Woods was taking to Houston.

The State called Woods’s niece, Pinder, to refute that she gave Woods

$13,000 and that Woods stored cash at the family property. Pinder also denied that

Woods earned any money doing work for her husband, Willie Pinder, or selling

horses, as Woods testified. Pinder testified that her son organized the parties that

Woods referred to in his testimony and that Woods had no involvement in them

and did not receive any of the proceeds.

Notwithstanding the questionable origins of the money, the jury was only

asked to resolve whether the money was “intended to be used in the commission of

the possession of a controlled substance” and not whether it was proceeds from

prior illegal activity.

7 Appellant’s Challenges to the Sufficiency of the Evidence:

In their first two issues, appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.

For reasons we explain below, we agree that the evidence is legally insufficient to

support the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment of forfeiture.

A. Standard of Review

Evidence is legally insufficient to support a jury finding when (1) the record

discloses a complete absence of evidence to prove a vital fact, (2) rules of law or

evidence bar the court from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a

vital fact, (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere

scintilla, or (4) the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of a vital fact.

Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580, 613 (Tex. 2016). A

legal sufficiency challenge fails if more than a scintilla of evidence supports the

challenged finding. Tex. Outfitters Ltd. v. Nicholson, 572 S.W.3d 647, 653 (Tex.

2019). More than a scintilla of evidence exists if the evidence rises to a level that

would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions.

Albert v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 690 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. 2024) (per curiam).

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. We must credit

evidence favorable to the finding if a reasonable jury could and disregard contrary

evidence unless a reasonable jury could not. Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, 505 S.W.3d

at 613.

8 When determining whether evidence is factually insufficient to support a

finding, we must consider and weigh all the evidence relevant to that finding. Id. at

615. If the credible evidence supporting the finding is so weak or so contrary to the

overwhelming weight of the evidence, or it amounts to no evidence, we will set

aside the finding and order a new trial. Id. We may not substitute our judgment for

that of the jury. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Tex.

2003). The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight

to give their testimony. Id.

B. Probable Cause to Seize

In forfeiture proceedings, the State bears the burden to show probable cause

for seizing a person’s property. $56,700 in U.S. Currency v. State, 730 S.W.2d

659, 661 (Tex. 1987) (citing TEX. CONST. art. I, § 9). To meet this burden, the State

must present sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable belief that a substantial

connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the criminal activity

defined by the statute. State v. $11,014.00, 820 S.W.2d 783, 784 (Tex. 1991). This

is accomplished when the State proves that it is more reasonably probable than not

that the seized currency was either intended for use in, or derived from, a violation

of the offenses listed in the forfeiture statute. State v. $5,500 in U.S. Currency, 296

S.W.3d 696, 701 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). For the purposes of this

9 appeal, we assume without deciding that the officers had probable cause to seize

the cash involved in this controversy

C. Intent to Use the Money in the Commission of the Possession of a “Controlled Substance”

It is the State’s burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a

substantial nexus or connection between the property to be forfeited and the

statutorily defined criminal activity, which it may show by circumstantial

evidence. $27,877.00 Current Money of U.S. v. State, 331 S.W.3d 110, 117 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. denied). The State may not seize property based on

mere suspicion. See $43,774.00 U.S. Currency v. State, 266 S.W.3d 178, 187-88

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied); United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet

Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1980). As charged here in Question No. 2, the

State had to prove that the money “was intended to be used in the commission of

the possession of a Controlled Substance,” with “Controlled Substance” defined as

“heroin, cocaine, ecstasy (also known as, 3,4-methelynedioxymethampetamine, or

MDMA) methamphetamine, or marihuana.”1

In Approximately $31,421.00 v. State, 485 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied), the court of appeals found insufficient evidence to

1 The jury was alternatively asked in Question No. 3 whether the money was the proceeds of criminal activity and being laundered. Because the jury answered “no” to that question, we address the evidentiary sufficiency of only the jury’s affirmative finding to Question No. 2. 10 support the jury’s finding of contraband where the respondent was traveling from

Atlanta with a bag containing a large sum of cash. The respondent was in a bus

station and, according to the police, looking nervous and as if he were avoiding

police contact. Id. at 75. The respondent consented to a search, during which police

officers found cash bundled in cellophane in the respondent’s bag. Police officers

had a police dog sniff the bag, and the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics in

the bag. Id. at 79. However, police officers found no drugs or drug paraphernalia in

the bag and conducted no further testing on the bag or the money. $31,421.00, 485

S.W.3d at 79, 83. The respondent was initially charged with money laundering, but

the grand jury returned a no-bill due to the lack of probable cause. Id. at 83. The

court of appeals held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the money

was contraband, reasoning that “it is not enough to convince a jury that something

is out of the ordinary.” Id. at 84 (citation modified).

In this case, as in $31,421.00, there was no direct evidence connecting the

money to the possession of a Controlled Substance. 485 S.W.3d at 77. Woods was

traveling from Mississippi to Houston2 with two large bundles of cash,3 wrapped in

plastic, similar to the respondent in $31,421.00. Like the respondent in $31,421.00,

2 Traveling a particular route amounts to “mere conjecture” of criminal activity. See Deschenes v. State, 253 S.W.3d 374, 383 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d). 3 Possession of a large sum of money is not illegal in and of itself. $27,920.00 in U.S. Currency v. State, 37 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). 11 the deputies described Woods’s demeanor as nervous.4 A narcotics detection dog

alerted to the odor of one of the five Controlled Substances after the seizure, but

the deputies found no narcotics or paraphernalia, as in $31,421.00.5 Woods was not

charged with any crime in connection with this police encounter or the cash, which

is similar to the no-billed charges in $31,421.00. The evidence of drug trafficking

in this case (Deputy Sandoval’s various accounts of Woods’s mentioning a

cousin’s drug-trafficking boyfriend) amounts to little more than what Deputy

Sandoval himself characterized as “small talk.” Deputy Sandoval wrote in his

supplement to the offense report that:

[Woods] voluntarily was explaining to me why he had come to Houston and mentioned he had never done this before and knows drugs are moved through this area. He continued to mention his female cousin’s boyfriend who was from his home town is [i]nvolved in the drug world. [H]e continued to mention that [person] moves drugs regu[l]arly.

At trial, Deputy Sandoval testified that Woods told him that his cousin’s

boyfriend was “involved in the drug world,” and “that he was being paid to come

to Houston with this money because the trucking business was slow back home

where he was from.” According to Deputy Sandoval, appellant Woods further

4 Nervousness is not evidence of criminal activity. Monjaras v. State, 679 S.W.3d 834, 849 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, no pet.); Glass v. State, 681 S.W.2d 599, 602 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (en banc). 5 The dog alerting to such odor on the money, standing alone, is no evidence that Woods intended to use the money in the future to possess a Controlled Substance. $80,631.00 v. State, 861 S.W.2d 10, 12 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied). 12 stated that, “[o]nce he arrived to Houston, he was to make a phone call to

somebody to get further instructions.” Woods denied making the admissions as

Deputy Sandoval characterized them, explaining that Woods, Sergeant Wade, and

Deputy Sandoval “were talking about some TV-type stuff.” Even taking Deputy

Sandoval’s testimony at face value, it does not amount to an admission by Woods

that he intended to use the money to purchase any illegal drugs, let alone one of the

five specific drugs defined as a Controlled Substance. Rather, Deputy Sandoval

recounted what could have just as easily been two, unrelated discussions about

Woods’s knowing people who are involved in drug trafficking and Woods’s plan

to come to Houston to conduct business related to the trucking business. Because

mere knowledge of someone involved in drug trafficking is just as consistent with

innocent conduct as commission of one of the enumerated offenses, the evidence is

legally insufficient to support the jury’s finding that the cash was “intended to be

used in the commission of the possession of a Controlled Substance.” $56,700, 730

S.W.2d at 662 (holding presence of small amounts of cocaine and paraphernalia in

vicinity of cash was equally consistent with either trafficking drugs or merely

using drugs, and therefore insufficient for forfeiture); see $567.00 in U.S. Currency

v. State, 282 S.W.3d 244, 250 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.) (stating even

property in possession of known, admitted drug dealer with no other proven source

of income is factually insufficient to support forfeiture in absence of additional

13 evidence linking property to enumerated offense). In a factually similar case the

Northern District of Texas has likewise found such evidence insufficient. U.S. v.

$80,760.00 in U.S. Currency, 781 F.Supp. 462, 478-79 (N.D. Tex. 1991) (holding

evidence insufficient where two men carrying large sums of cash at airport and

acting nervous claimed to be en route to purchase cars for resale, but neither held

wholesaler’s license or carried auto sales literature, and cash yielded alert by

narcotics detection dog).

Accordingly, because the evidence is legally insufficient to support the

jury’s finding that the money was intended to be used to possess a Controlled

Substance, we sustain Appellants’ second issue. Because this issue is dispositive of

the appeal, we need not consider Appellants’ remaining issues. See TEX. R. APP. P.

47.1 (providing that “court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as

brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final

disposition of the appeal”).

Conclusion

Appellants have requested that this Court reverse the judgment below and

render judgment for appellants.

We reverse the judgment of the trial court, render judgment ordering the

State to return the proceeds to Woods and Davis, and remand the case to the trial

court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

14 Amparo “Amy” Guerra Justice

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.