the specific substance that was a dilutant or adulterant; (2) the relative amounts of dilutant or adulterant within a given mixture; or (3) intent that an adulterant or dilutant was added to increase the bulk of the drug. See Isassi v. State, 91 S.W.3d 807, 810 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2002, pet. ref’d). By enacting the statutory definition of "adulterant or dilutant,” in its current wording, these three judicially-enforced prongs were eliminated. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.002(49) (eff. Sept. 1, 1994). 5 . See generally Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991) (discussing congressional purpose in enacting federal drug sentencing provisions based upon weight of drugs combined with cutting agents and carrier mediums). 6 . Id. at 461, 111 S.Ct. 1919 (<HOLDING>). After the Chapman opinion, the Federal
holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court holding that the district court properly considered the moisture content in the calculation of the weight of the marijuana for sentencing purposes holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that the weight of the blotter paper used as the distribution medium for lsd is included in the weight of the drug for sentencing purposes holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses