Background
Amarillo Police Officer Bradley Hudson stopped Richard Allen Stevens around midnight after observing his vehicle make a wide right turn onto an I-40 frontage road, crossing into the left lane before merging right. Hudson also had noticed a dim taillight and erratic driving. During the stop, Hudson learned that Stevens’s driver’s license was invalid, that he had prior convictions for driving with an invalid license, and that the vehicle displayed an incorrect registration sticker.
Hudson arrested Stevens for driving with an invalid license. A search incident to arrest uncovered a bag in Stevens’s pants pocket containing 1.12 grams of methamphetamine. A jury convicted Stevens of possessing between one and four grams of methamphetamine, and the trial court, after considering his criminal history, sentenced him to 15 years in prison.
On appeal, Stevens challenged the legality of the traffic stop, the sufficiency of the possession evidence, the wording of the jury’s article 38.23 instruction, and the admission of his arrest and conviction records during punishment.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed. Although Stevens characterized his first issue as challenging the denial of a suppression motion, he had filed no such motion and made no oral suppression request at trial. The court therefore treated the issue as a challenge to the evidence supporting the implied finding that the stop was lawful. Hudson’s testimony and dash-camera video showed Stevens entering the left lane while making a right turn, providing reasonable suspicion that he violated the statutory requirement to turn as closely as practicable to the roadway’s right-hand curb or edge.
The evidence also sufficiently established possession because police found the methamphetamine in the pocket of clothing Stevens was wearing. Because the drugs were in a place under his exclusive possession, the State was not required to establish additional affirmative links between Stevens and the contraband.
The court rejected the remaining issues on procedural grounds. Stevens invited any alleged jury-charge error by insisting that the article 38.23 instruction ask only whether Hudson observed the wide turn. He also waived his challenge to the punishment evidence by failing to object and affirmatively stating that he had “no objection” when the State offered the records.
Key Takeaways
- An officer’s observation of a wide right turn crossing into the left lane supplied reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation, even without evidence that the turn was unsafe or interfered with traffic.
- Methamphetamine found in the pocket of clothing worn by the defendant sufficiently established possession without a separate affirmative-links analysis.
- A defendant cannot obtain appellate relief from jury-charge language he requested, and an affirmative statement of “no objection” generally waives a complaint about admitted punishment evidence.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates how dash-camera footage and officer testimony can establish reasonable suspicion based on the manner of a turn. It also distinguishes the legal question whether the totality of the circumstances creates reasonable suspicion from factual disputes that may be submitted to a jury under article 38.23.
For trial counsel, the decision underscores the consequences of shaping the challenged jury instruction and affirmatively accepting evidence: invited error and waiver can foreclose appellate review regardless of the underlying merits.