the jury the location where the backpack was found. Deputy Cook also authenticated a photograph as an accurate representation of the crash scene on the day of the accident, and identified the backpack in the photograph.
From this evidence, reasonable jurors could have concluded that the backpack was in the sedan before the accident occurred, and came out of the sedan when it crashed and overturned.
The appellant argues that, even if the contraband was inside the sedan before the crash, because he was not the owner of the sedan, the State was required to prove that he was in joint possession of the items.[3] He is incorrect. The mere fact that the appellant did not own the sedan did not make this a joint possession case. The significant factcloth items, such as the backpack, and that dust or dirt "could have a disastrous affect on fingerprints." Thus, it is unlikely that any tests performed on the destroyed items would have yielded any results.
Also, related evidence was admitted at trial. The officers present at the scene of the accident testified, and the appellant had the opportunity to question them as to the location of the backpack and its condition when they discovered it. Additionally, a DVD recording of the crash was admitted that showed items coming out of the vehicle as it overturned. Finally, one photograph that showed the backpack at the crash scene and where it was located in relation to the overturned sedan was admitted into evidence. Ironically, the appellant objected to that photograph coming