Reported / Citable
Background
In June 2024, Fort Worth narcotics officers conducting undercover surveillance at a commercial car wash observed Malcome Eldridge engaging in behavior consistent with drug trafficking. When Eldridge left at high speed, officers stopped him for a traffic violation and found drug paraphernalia in the front passenger seat. A further search of the vehicle revealed a handgun concealed beneath the steering column. Eldridge, who was alone in the car and admitted ownership of the vehicle, was confirmed to be a convicted felon and was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm under Texas Penal Code § 46.04(a)(2).
At trial, Eldridge pleaded not guilty. His mother testified that the gun was hers and that she had called him while he was at the car wash to inform him she had accidentally left it in his car. The jury rejected this defense and convicted Eldridge, sentencing him to five years in prison. Eldridge appealed on two grounds: insufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s refusal to include a voluntary-conduct instruction in the jury charge.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the conviction on both points. On sufficiency, the court held that even accepting Eldridge’s and his mother’s account as true, the evidence was sufficient to establish possession. The court emphasized three facts: Eldridge was in exclusive possession and control of the vehicle; he admittedly knew the firearm was present; and the gun was conveniently accessible, located directly under the steering column. Knowing of the firearm’s presence and continuing to drive the vehicle was sufficient to establish the care, custody, control, or management required for “possession” under Texas law.
On the jury charge issue, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to include a voluntary-conduct instruction. Under Texas Penal Code § 6.01(b), possession is voluntary when the possessor is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate that control. The court found that even under Eldridge’s own version of events—that his mother alerted him to the gun’s presence before he drove to a birthday party—he made a knowing choice to drive the car with the gun inside. This did not raise a genuine issue of involuntary conduct, so no instruction was warranted.
Key Takeaways
- A felon who knowingly drives a vehicle containing a firearm, with the gun within reach, can be convicted of unlawful possession even if he claims someone else left the weapon in the car without his prior knowledge.
- Under Texas law, exclusive control of a vehicle combined with actual knowledge of a firearm’s presence is sufficient circumstantial evidence of possession — the defendant’s connection to the weapon need not be shown by direct evidence.
- A voluntary-conduct instruction is only required when the evidence actually raises the issue of involuntariness; a defendant who chooses to continue operating a vehicle after learning a gun is inside has not raised that issue, regardless of how the gun came to be there.
- Appellate counsel risk disciplinary consequences for invoking the overruled Clewis factual-sufficiency standard — the Fort Worth court reiterated its prior warning on this practice.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a broad and practical reading of “possession” in Texas felon-in-possession cases. Defense attorneys should note that a “I didn’t put it there” narrative provides little protection when the defendant concedes he knew about the weapon and kept driving. The ruling makes clear that knowledge plus continued control — even for a brief period — satisfies the possession element, closing off a factual defense that might otherwise seem intuitive to jurors.
The court’s pointed warning about citing the overruled Clewis standard also serves as a reminder to Texas criminal defense practitioners: continuing to brief obsolete legal standards after repeated judicial admonishments carries real professional risk, and courts have signaled they will not indefinitely address such arguments on the merits.