.auto-style6 {
text-align: center;
}
.auto-style8 {
text-decoration: none;
}
.auto-style9 {
font-family: serif;
font-size: medium;
color: #000000;
}
.auto-style10 {
color: #000000;
}
.auto-style11 {
color: #000000;
font-size: medium;
}
.auto-style12 {
font-size: medium;
}
.auto-style13 {
font-size: medium;
font-weight: bold;
}
.auto-style14 {
font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
}
.auto-style15 {
font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-size: large;
font-weight: bold;
}
.auto-style16 {
font-size: large;
}
.auto-style17 {
font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-size: large;
}
.auto-style18 {
font-size: large;
color: #000000;
}
.auto-style19 {
font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-style: italic;
}
.auto-style20 {
font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: medium;
}
.auto-style21 {
font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-size: medium;
}
INFORMED CITIZENS
Home | Cause
| Timeline | Criminal|
Civil |
Resolution |
Documents|
Links
110k1144.13(6)
Most Cited Cases
When conducting legal sufficiency-of-evidence review, Court of Criminal
Appeals, in practice, assumes that jury weighed lightly exculpatory evidence
and disbelieved entirely exculpatory witnesses, and court makes that
assumption no matter how powerful exculpatory evidence may seem or how
credible defense witnesses may appear; if inculpatory evidence standing
alone is enough for rational people to believe in guilt of defendant, Court
of Criminal Appeals simply does not care how much credible evidence is on
other side.
[4]
Criminal Law 1159.2(9)
110k1159.2(9)
Most Cited Cases
One of most significant
differences between "factual" and "legal" or "constitutional"
sufficiency of evidence standards is that the latter does not permit
weighing of inculpatory against exculpatory evidence.
[2][3]
When we conduct a legal sufficiency-of-the-evidence review as prescribed by
Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979),
we do not weigh the
evidence tending to establish guilt against the evidence tending to
establish innocence. Nor do we assess the credibility of witnesses on each
side. We view the evidence in a manner favorable to the verdict of guilty.
In practice, this means we assume that the jury weighed lightly the
exculpatory evidence and disbelieved entirely the exculpatory witnesses. We
make this assumption no matter how powerful the exculpatory evidence may
seem to us or how credible the defense witnesses may appear. If the
inculpatory evidence standing alone is enough for rational people to believe
in the guilt of the
*206
defendant, we simply do not care how much credible evidence is on the other
side.
[FN1]
[4]
Of course, we have lately come to hold that the courts of appeals do have
authority to conduct factual sufficiency reviews on direct appeal, and we
have indicated that we also have such authority, in capital cases in which
exculpatory evidence may be weighed against inculpatory evidence.
Clewis v. State, 922
S.W.2d 126, 130 & 136 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).
But this kind of evidentiary review is quite different from that in which
the evidence is examined to determine whether, viewing it in a light most
favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the
defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Indeed, one of the
most significant differences between the so-called "factual" and the
so-called "legal" or "constitutional" sufficiency-of-the-evidence standards
is that the latter does not permit a weighing of inculpatory against
exculpatory evidence.
BACK
Honor Quest is a companion website to
restore our Constitution
Visit
Honor Quest