Hanson, Patrick Dean v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 22, 2004
• Docket: 14-03-01169-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 22, 2004

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 22, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-03-01169-CR

PATRICK DEAN HANSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 938,398

_____________________________________________________________

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Patrick Dean Hanson appeals a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance^[1] on the ground that the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury to disregard an improper jury argument by the prosecutor.  We affirm.

During the State=s closing argument in the guilt phase of trial, the following exchange occurred:

THE STATE:        Now, no matter how you feel about the war on drugs, no matter how you feel about the drug problem in America, this defendant is not a victim of that drug war.  He=s not a victim of that drug culture.  There=s no testimony about him using drugs.  Make no mistake.  This defendant is an opportunist.  He wants to make some quick money.  He saw [the confidential informant].  He saw Agent Jackson.  And he knew they were at Fi-Fi=s house.  So what did he do?  He can sling some dope for some cash, about 10 percent, and a little on the back end, either dope or money.  And he ran to it.  This is not a case B there=s no law about entrapment.  This is not some sort of entrapment. . . .

APPELLANT:      Objection to inserting facts not in evidence about any reimbursement my client may have received.

THE COURT:      Sustained . . . .

APPELLANT:      Ask the jury to disregard the prosecutor=s remarks about any gain my client may have gotten out of this.

THE COURT:      Overruled.  This is argument.

(emphasis added).

Appellant contends that the italicized portion of the prosecutor=s argument injected new facts because there was no evidence that appellant actually received ten percent of the value of the cocaine purchased or anything else of value. 

Permissible jury argument includes, among other things, reasonable deductions from the evidence.  Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1, 21 (Tex Crim. App. 2000).  A professional confidential informant, who was involved in the transaction (the Atransaction@) for which appellant was arrested, testified that, as a general matter, large drug dealers commonly use intermediaries to deal with people whom they don=t know.  The informant further testified that such an intermediary would collect Aon both ends,@ getting 10 percent from the buyer and drugs or monetary value from the seller.

The confidential informant and undercover police officer involved in the transaction each described how appellant acted as an intermediary in the transaction between them and the drug dealer they had originally targeted.  Therefore, it was a reasonable deduction from the evidence that appellant may have received what the informant had testified that intermediaries typically receive for acting in that capacity.  Because appellant=s sole point of error thus fails to demonstrate error by the trial court in giving the jury no instruction to disregard this argument, it is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/        Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 22, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

^[1]           A jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment of thirty-seven years confinement and a $2500 fine.