factual insufficiency challenge in Texas

2004Appellant seeks to extend the factual insufficiency standard of review found in Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), to appellate challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in revocation proceedings.

1999When presented with a factual insufficiency claim, we view all the evidence without the prism of "in the light most favorable to the verdict," and reverse "only if [the verdict] is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust." Clewis v. State , 922 S.W.2d 126, 134 (Tex. Crim.

1999Factual Insufficiency The test for factual insufficiency points is set forth in In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).

1999Factual Insufficiency The test for factual insufficiency points is set forth in In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).

2015Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex. 1989.) In reviewing a factual insufficiency challenge, an appellate court must examine all evidence in support of and contrary to the court’s finding.

1997In reviewing a factual insufficiency challenge, the appellate court must consider all of the evidence in the record, both supporting and contrary to the judgment.- Plas-Tex., *586 Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex.1989); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660, 661 (1951).

2021Salinas v. 2 Appellant incorrectly asserts a factual insufficiency claim; the court in Brooks abandoned the factual sufficiency standard, codifying it to a standard of legal sufficiency. 323 S.W.3d at 915 (Cochran, J., concurring op.)(“To declare the evidence factually insufficient necessarily turns an appellate judge, viewing only the cold written record, into a self-appointed thirteenth juror with absolute veto power over the twelve citizens who actually saw the witnesses, heard the evidence, and reached a rational, reasonable verdict.”). 4 State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).

2021We measure the evidence by the 2 Appellant incorrectly asserts a factual insufficiency claim; the court in Brooks abandoned the factual sufficiency standard, codifying it to a standard of legal sufficiency. 323 S.W.3d at 915 (Cochran, J., concurring op.)(“To declare the evidence factually insufficient necessarily turns an appellate judge, viewing only the cold written record, into a self-appointed thirteenth juror with absolute veto power over the twelve citizens who actually saw the witnesses, heard the evidence, and reached a rational, reasonable verdict.”). 4 elements of the offense as defi

2007See Johnson v. State , 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim.

2005See Johnson v. State , 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim.

1992When a factual insufficiency challenge is brought, the court must first examine all of the evidence, Lofton v. Texas Brine Corp., 720 S.W.2d 804, 805 (Tex. 1986); and considering and weighing all the evidence, the court may set aside the finding only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.

1992When a factual insufficiency challenge is brought, the court must first examine all of the evidence, Lofton v. Texas Brine Corp., 720 S.W.2d 804, 805 (Tex. 1986); and considering and weighing all the evidence, the court may set aside the finding only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.

1999Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986).

1995Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.1986).

2010See Corrales, 155 S.W.3d at 488–89.

2009See Corrales v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Seros., 155 S.W.3d 478, 488-89 (Tex.App.-E1 Paso 2004, no pet.).

2005See Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex.1986).

2002Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex.1986).

2021Salinas v. 2 Appellant incorrectly asserts a factual insufficiency claim; the court in Brooks abandoned the factual sufficiency standard, codifying it to a standard of legal sufficiency. 323 S.W.3d at 915 (Cochran, J., concurring op.)(“To declare the evidence factually insufficient necessarily turns an appellate judge, viewing only the cold written record, into a self-appointed thirteenth juror with absolute veto power over the twelve citizens who actually saw the witnesses, heard the evidence, and reached a rational, reasonable verdict.”). 4 State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).

2021Salinas v. 2 Appellant incorrectly asserts a factual insufficiency claim; the court in Brooks abandoned the factual sufficiency standard, codifying it to a standard of legal sufficiency. 323 S.W.3d at 915 (Cochran, J., concurring op.)(“To declare the evidence factually insufficient necessarily turns an appellate judge, viewing only the cold written record, into a self-appointed thirteenth juror with absolute veto power over the twelve citizens who actually saw the witnesses, heard the evidence, and reached a rational, reasonable verdict.”). 4 State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 737 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).

2015The Tenth Court of Appeals declared that it will sustain a factual insufficiency challenge "when: (1) the evidence is factually insufficient to support a finding by clear and convincing evidence; or (2) a finding is so contrary to the weight of contradicting evidence that no trier of fact could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing." In re A.M.C., 2 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex.App.- Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Spangler, 962 S.W.2d at 257 .

2015The Tenth Court of Appeals declared that it will sustain a factual insufficiency challenge "when: (1) the evidence is factually insufficient to support a finding by clear and convincing evidence; or (2) a finding is so contrary to the weight of contradicting evidence that no trier of fact could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing." In re A.M.C., 2 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex.App.- Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Spangler, 962 S.W.2d at 257 .

2015The Tenth Court of Appeals declared that it will sustain a factual insufficiency challenge "when: (1) the evidence is factually insufficient to support a finding by clear and convincing evidence; or (2) a finding is so contrary to the weight of contradicting evidence that no trier of fact could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing." In re A.M.C., 2 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex.App.- Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Spangler, 962 S.W.2d at 257 .

2015The Tenth Court of Appeals declared that it will sustain a factual insufficiency challenge "when: (1) the evidence is factually insufficient to support a finding by clear and convincing evidence; or (2) a finding is so contrary to the weight of contradicting evidence that no trier of fact could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing." In re A.M.C., 2 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex.App.- Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Spangler, 962 S.W.2d at 257 .

2015The Fourth Court of Appeals reviewed a jury's findings based on clear and convincing evidence to determine whether sufficient evidence was presented to "produce in the mind of a rational factfinder a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." In re H.C., 942 S.W.2d 661, 663-64 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ).

2015The Fourth Court of Appeals reviewed a jury's findings based on clear and convincing evidence to determine whether sufficient evidence was presented to "produce in the mind of a rational factfinder a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." In re H.C., 942 S.W.2d 661, 663-64 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ).

2001Ortiz v. Jones , 917 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1996).

2000Ortiz v. Jones , 917 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1996).

2001See Johnson v. State , 23 S.W.3d 1, 6-7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (en banc); Kutzner v. State , 994 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999).

2000The gist of appellant’s second claim is that not only was the evidence insufficient to establish the intent element but that it was also factually insufficient to establish that the gun was used “in a manner that death or serious bodily injury would result from its use.” In determining a factual insufficiency claim, we do not view all the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” but may only set aside the verdict if it is “so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.” Kutzner v. State , 994 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999).

2003See also In re C.J.H., 79 S.W.3d 698, 703-04 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 2002, no pet.).

2003See also In re C.J.H., 79 S.W.3d 698, 703-04 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 2002, no pet.).

2003In reviewing a factual insufficiency challenge, we will apply the standard set out in In re J.J., 916 S.W.2d 532, 535-36 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.), and will set aside a factfinder’s determination only if we determine, after consideration of all the evidence, that it is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust, shocking to the conscience, or clearly demonstrating bias.

2003In reviewing a factual insufficiency challenge, we will apply the standard set out in In re J.J., 916 S.W.2d 532, 535-36 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.), and will set aside a factfinder’s determination only if we determine, after consideration of all the evidence, that it is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust, shocking to the conscience, or clearly demonstrating bias.

2002Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986); Williams v. Gaines, 943 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1997, writ denied).

2002Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986); Williams v. Gaines, 943 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1997, writ denied).

2009Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex. Crim.

2009Watson v. State , 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex. Crim.

2008Appellant argues R.S.’s lack of credibility makes the verdict “clearly wrong and manifestly unjust.” Appellant heavily relies on the 1924 case of Green v. State to support his position. 3 See Green v. State, 97 Tex.Crim. 52 , 260 S.W. 195, 196 (1924).

2008Appellant argues R.S.’s lack of credibility makes the verdict “clearly wrong and manifestly unjust.” Appellant heavily relies on the 1924 case of Green v. State to support his position. 3 See Green v. State, 97 Tex.Crim. 52 , 260 S.W. 195, 196 (1924).

1999Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex.1993); Cantu v. Butron, 921 S.W.2d 344, 348 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied).

1998Browning —Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex.1993); Cantu v. Butron, 921 S.W.2d 344, 348 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied).

1999Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex.1993); Cantu v. Butron, 921 S.W.2d 344, 348 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied).

1998Browning —Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex.1993); Cantu v. Butron, 921 S.W.2d 344, 348 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied).

2001Raw Hide , 766 S.W.2d at 276 .

2001Raw Hide, 766 S.W.2d at 276 .

1999Id.

1983Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.1965); 2) In a factual insufficiency claim, appellant must prove to the appellate court that considering all of the evidence, the jury’s verdict is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust.

2024See Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. Crim.

2022Id. at 672 .

2018In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d 498 , 503 (Tex. 2014) ; C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 26 .

2017In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014); C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 26 .