Adair v. State

In three issues, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge, the evidence was legally insufficient to show that his prior convictions were final for enhancement purposes under �12.42 of the Texas Penal Code, and the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the state's improper jury argument that he was a "dope dealer," "not just an addict," and "the problem." Houston's 1st Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Houston's 1st Court of Appeals, No. 01-08-00183-CR, 09-14-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

A jury found, appellant, James Lance Adair, guilty of the offense of possession of methylenedioxy methamphetamine (commonly known as “ecstasy”), weighing between 4 and 400 grams,*fn1 and, after appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs, the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty-five years. In three issues, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his Batson*fn2 challenge, the evidence was legally insufficient to show that his prior convictions were final for enhancement purposes under section 12.42 of the Texas Penal Code,*fn3 and the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the State’s improper jury argument that he was a “dope dealer,” “not just an addict,” and “the problem.”

We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background On April 12, 2007, Houston Police officers conducted surveillance of a business prior to executing a search warrant on the business. Officers observed heavy foot traffic and activity around the business, and they concluded based upon their observations that narcotics were being sold at the business. Officer R. Jordan testified that, while conducting surveillance outside the business, he saw appellant exit the business, get into a car parked on a road near the business, and drive the car directly in front of the front door of the business. Appellant then exited the car, opened the back door, and unloaded two bags from the car. Appellant then walked back into the business holding the bags. Jordan stated that one bag resembled a bowling bag and the other bag resembled a square briefcase.

Adair v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal