Houston v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 536-82,536-82 |
| Citation | 663 S.W.2d 455 |
| Parties | Eddie Maxcie HOUSTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Leonard M. Roth, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Alvin M. Titus and John Holleman, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty. and Alfred Walker, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING ON PETITION FOR
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
This Court granted appellant's motion for leave to file his motion for rehearing from the refusal of his petition for discretionary review in order to consider the correct standard for the review of cases based on circumstantial evidence. Appellant specifically asked that we announce the correct standard as being one in which the appellate court reviews the evidence in light of the presumption that the accused is innocent.
Subsequent to granting appellant's motion for leave to file, we handed down a group of cases which settled the question of the standard of review to be used in circumstantial evidence cases. Carlsen v. State, 654 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (); Freeman v. State, 654 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (); Denby v. State, 654 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (); and Wilson v. State, 654 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (). The Court found that the standard for review in both direct and circumstantial evidence cases is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court's opinion then went on to address directly the issue now before us:
"... This Court's opinions have never held the circumstantial evidence analysis constitutes a different standard for review from that to be applied in direct evidence cases.*
Carlsen v. State, supra, at 449; Freeman v. State, supra, at 456; Denby v. State, supra, at 464; Wilson v. State, supra, at 472. Thus, we have declined to accept the standard requested by appellant. In both direct and circumstantial evidence cases the reviewing court will look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict or judgment. All cases containing the language that review of the evidence "in light of the presumption that the accused is innocent" are expressly overruled.
The appellant's motion for rehearing on petition for discretionary review is denied.
* [Footnote] "It is true...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geesa v. State, 290-90
...("If the State's evidence supports an inference other than a finding of the essential elements of the crime"), and Houston v. State, 663 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) ("the reviewing court will look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict"). 8 Questions of this na......
-
Castillo v. State
...on Rehearing); Freeman v. State, 654 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Denby v. State, 654 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Houston v. State, 663 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). The standard adopted by this Court is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,......
-
Bower v. State
...is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Houston v. State, 663 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Carlson v. State, 654 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Furthermore, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable ......
-
Livingston v. State
...in consideration of that issue. Dunn v. State, 721 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Scott v. State, supra, citing Houston v. State, 663 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). In the instant case the record reflects that there were several eyewitnesses to the shooting. Donald Austin, Joe Cunningham and ......