meaning of a statute unless the. language is ambiguous or the plain meaning leads to absurd results that the legislature could not possibly have intended” (citing Boykin, 818 S.W.2d at 785)). 303 . See Boykin, 818 S.W.2d at 785 (emphasizing that "absurd results" limitation is "a narrow exception to the plain meaning rule,” applicable only where "the Legislature could not possibly have intended” the meaning of a statute as read literally) (emphasis in original). The Court of Criminal Appeals has policed this limitation strictly. See, e.g., Spence v. State, 325 S.W.3d 646, 651 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (not an "absurd result” to construe statute requiring display of license plate at "front” of vehicle to mean front bumper rather than a windshield or similar location); Boykin, 818 S.W.2d at 786 (<HOLDING>). 304 . E.g., Robertson, 649 P.2d at 579-80,
holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding that prohibition against delivering a simulated controlled substance while expressly representing the substance to be a controlled substance excluded references made in slang terms and that this literal application  of the provisions plain language does not lead to absurd consequences