Weston Lloyd Carthen v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 18, 2005
Docket11-04-00151-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Weston Lloyd Carthen v. State (Weston Lloyd Carthen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Weston Lloyd Carthen v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Weston Lloyd Carthen

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-04-00151-CR -- Appeal from Palo Pinto County

State of Texas

Appellee

Weston Lloyd Carthen appeals his conviction by a jury of the offense of manufacturing a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of 400 grams or more.  The jury assessed his punishment at 65 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and a fine of $10,000.  In two issues, Carthen asserts that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the determination that he engaged in the manufacture of a controlled substance and that the trial court=s actions during trial are indicative of bias resulting in the denial of his right to an impartial tribunal.  We affirm.

Carthen contends in Issue One that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the determination that he engaged in the manufacture of a controlled substance.  In a legal sufficiency review, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and then determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).  In a factual sufficiency review, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light; and we will set the verdict aside only if the evidence is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or if the contrary evidence is so strong that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been met.  Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex.Cr.App.2004).


Freddie Gonzales testified that he is a constable for Palo Pinto County.  He indicated that on April 3, 2003, having previously served an eviction notice on Carthen, he went to Carthen=s residence at 305 Tournament to see how far along he was to moving out.  He stated that it took Carthen about a couple of minutes to get to the door.  He said that he detected the smell of ether, which he knew to be a method of Acooking@ methamphetamine.

Constable Gonzales testified that, after stepping inside the residence, he noticed some containers against the east wall of the living room.  He indicated that there was a red water cooler in the living room floor.  He said it appeared that no furniture had been moved out.  He stated that Carthen said, AWe=re moving, we=re putting our stuff out.@

Constable Gonzales related that, after he could not secure backup at that time, he left and returned to the residence with another officer about 45 minutes to one hour later.  He testified that, after calling the sheriff=s office for assistance, Deputy McCurtain came to the residence.  He stated that, when they tried to open one of the containers in the residence, it started spewing because it was under pressure.

Constable Gonzales testified that Carthen was at the residence and occupied the residence.  He said that, based upon what he saw in the residence, he had no doubt that Carthen was manufacturing methamphetamine.

Doug Wood testified that he is a lieutenant in the Narcotics Service of the Texas Department of Public Safety.  He indicated that on April 3, 2003, he was involved in an investigation of the manufacture of methamphetamine at 305 Tournament.  He identified Carthen as the person who occupied the residence.  He related that, when he arrived at the residence on that evening, it appeared that there was an eviction going on because there was a lot of property in the front yard.  He said that he could mostly smell the odor of ether at that location.  According to Lieutenant Wood, that odor meant that somebody had been manufacturing methamphetamine at that location.

Lieutenant Wood testified that pump-up sprayers found at the residence were an indication of the manufacturing process.  He asserted that they were used as a generator of hydrochloric gas.  He named the two ingredients that are put into such sprayers to produce the gas.  He also cited coffee filters, buckets, Drano (a drain opener), and a sprayer mask as further examples of items used in manufacturing methamphetamine.


Lieutenant Wood then elaborated on the ingredients and the process by which methamphetamine is manufactured.  While we feel that it would be imprudent to detail the manufacturing process here, it appears to involve a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis because it involves a combination of chemicals, from which certain resulting chemicals are extracted to produce the methamphetamine.  Lieutenant Wood testified that there was no doubt in his mind that the process of manufacturing methamphetamine by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis had taken place at the residence. 

On cross-examination, Lieutenant Wood confirmed that a brown substance in the water cooler was found to contain methamphetamine.  Lieutenant Wood acknowledged that he did not see any ammonia or ammonia containers and that he could not remember if there were any lithium batteries.  Ammonia and lithium batteries were two of the ingredients he had earlier mentioned as those used in the manufacturing process.  Acknowledging that manufacturers of methamphetamine use starter fluid in the process, he stated that he did not find any containers of such fluid.  He also acknowledged that he did not see any Abones,@ a sludge-type substance that results at a certain stage of the manufacturing process.  He said that he did not see Carthen on this occasion.

Darla Dowell testified that she is employed in the Narcotics Service of the Texas Department of Public Safety.  She indicated that she became involved in the investigation at 305 Tournament in Mineral Wells on April 3, 2003.  She said that, when she arrived at the scene, she saw things consistent with a methamphetamine lab.  She identified several common items found at the scene and testified concerning their use in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine.  One of the items mentioned was pseudoephedrine tablets, which she identified as an ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine. 

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Lindley v. State
736 S.W.2d 267 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Green v. State
930 S.W.2d 655 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Gish v. State
606 S.W.2d 883 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Zuniga v. State
144 S.W.3d 477 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Weston Lloyd Carthen v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weston-lloyd-carthen-v-state-texapp-2005.