Ehake v. Texas (original by judge johnson)
Annotate this CaseA jury convicted appellant of possession of more than one gram but less than four grams of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone and, because of two enhancement allegations and the drug-free-zone allegation, assessed a sentence of seventy-five years in prison. Appellant appealed, contending that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his motion to make an independent examination of the alleged methamphetamine. The court of appeals overruled this issue. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted one of appellant’s grounds for review: the ground asserting that the court of appeals erred in finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to inspect the alleged methamphetamine. That ground comprises two sub-issues: (1) whether a defendant charged with possession of a controlled substance has a right to inspection of the controlled substance by an independent expert; and, (2) whether the state is required to pay for an indigent defendant’s inspection of the controlled substance by an independent expert. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that, while the trial court was required to permit a defendant in a controlled-substance case to have an independent expert analyze the controlled substance, the trial court was not required to appoint such an expert for an indigent defendant, absent a preliminary showing of a significant issue of fact.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.