evidence against instruction in Texas

2015Mindful that there is a strong presumption that the best interest of the child is served by keeping custody in the natural parent, we have weighed the totality of the evidence against the factors set out in Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371-72 .

2015Mindful that there is a strong presumption that the best interest of the child is served by keeping custody in the natural parent, we have weighed the totality of the evidence against the factors set out in Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371-72 .

1994Once it is established that the jury instruction properly incorporates all of the *56 essential elements of the offense as set forth in the controlling penal provision, the reviewing court can proceed to measure sufficiency of the evidence against the instruction given. [11] Cf. Benson, supra; Boozer, supra. We do not mean to suggest that an indictment which fails to specifically charge or set forth all of the essential elements of an offense is constitutionally sound, but only, as we held in Studer , that a defendant must object to substantive defects in order to preserve error. [12] In the c

1994Once it is established that the jury instruction properly incorporates all of the essential elements of the offense as set forth in the controlling penal provision, the reviewing court can proceed to measure sufficiency of the evidence against the instruction given. 11 Cf. Benson, supra; Boozer, supra. We do not mean to suggest that an indictment which fails to specifically charge or set forth all of the essential elements of an offense is constitutionally sound, but only, as we held in Studer , that a defendant must object to substantive defects in order to preserve error. 12 In the case of a

1995Cf. Benson, supra; Boozer, supra. We do not mean to suggest that an indictment which fails to specifically charge or set forth all of the essential elements of an offense is constitutionally sound, but only, as we held in Studer [v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (1990) ], that a defendant must object to substantive defects in order to preserve error.

1995Cf. Benson , supra; Boozer , supra. We do not mean to suggest that an indictment which fails to specifically charge or set forth all of the essential elements of an offense is constitutionally sound, but only, as we held in Studer , that a defendant must object to substantive defects in order to preserve error.

2017The court of appeals based its conclusion exclusively on its analysis of the evidence against the factors we laid out in Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998).

1995Fisher, 887 S.W.2d at 57-58 .

1995Id. at 55-56 .

1995Cf. Benson, supra; Boozer, supra. We do not mean to suggest that an indictment which fails to specifically charge or set forth all of the essential elements of an offense is constitutionally sound, but only, as we held in Studer [v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (1990) ], that a defendant must object to substantive defects in order to preserve error.

1994See, e.g., McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 , 111 S.Ct. 1807 , 114 L.Ed.2d 307 (1991) (court of appeals improperly upheld conviction on legal and factual grounds not considered by jury, citing among other cases, Cole v. Arkansas ); Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 , 99 S.Ct. 2190 , 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979) (to affirm conviction on basis of theory that differed from theory presented in indictment and jury charge is offensive to due process of law, citing Cole v. Arkansas ); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 , 68 S.Ct. 514 , 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948) (state court which affirmed conviction under §

1994See, e.g., McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 , 111 S.Ct. 1807 , 114 L.Ed.2d 307 (1991) (court of appeals improperly upheld conviction on legal and factual grounds not considered by jury, citing among other cases, Cole v. Arkansas ); Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 , 99 S.Ct. 2190 , 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979) (to affirm conviction on basis of theory that differed from theory presented in indictment and jury charge is offensive to due process of law, citing Cole v. Arkansas ); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 , 68 S.Ct. 514 , 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948) (state court which affirmed conviction under §

1994See, e.g., McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 , 111 S.Ct. 1807 , 114 L.Ed.2d 307 (1991); Cole v. Arkansas; Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 , 99 S.Ct. 2190 , 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979).

1994See, e.g., McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 , 111 S.Ct. 1807 , 114 L.Ed.2d 307 (1991); Cole v. Arkansas; Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 , 99 S.Ct. 2190 , 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979).

1953In many cases the circumstances are so strong as to entirely overcome such presumption, and we think such is the case in reference to these surveys, basing our conclusion upon the facts above stated.” And in Garcia v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W. 319, 321 , the following is found: “Nor do the calls for these monuments and corners marked by them in junior surveys control.

1952Kelly v. McKay, Tex.Sup., 233 S.W.2d 121 , and cases cited therein.

1948In the case of White et al. v. White et al., 141 Tex. 328 , 172 S.W.2d 295 , the Supreme Court of this State held that in determining whether it is proper to instruct a verdict in favor of a defendant, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing parties, and must indulge every inference that may properly be drawn from the evidence against the instruction, and if the record reflects any testimony of probative force in favor of the losing parties, the reviewing court must hold the instruction improper.

1948In the case of White et al. v. White et al., 141 Tex. 328 , 172 S.W.2d 295 , the Supreme Court of this State held that in determining whether it is proper to instruct a verdict in favor of a defendant, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing parties, and must indulge every inference that may properly be drawn from the evidence against the instruction, and if the record reflects any testimony of probative force in favor of the losing parties, the reviewing court must hold the instruction improper.