Brooks v. Texas
323 S.W.3d 893 (2010)
Rule of Law:
The legal-sufficiency standard established in Jackson v. Virginia is the sole standard an appellate court should apply when determining if the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense in Texas. The separate factual-sufficiency standard of review from Clewis v. State is overruled.
Facts:
- Police officers went to a bar to investigate a report that an individual matching the description of appellant Brooks was armed with a gun.
- When officers approached Brooks and asked him to step outside, he fled.
- While running, Brooks threw two baggies towards a pool table just before an officer subdued him with a taser.
- One baggie contained approximately 3 grams of marijuana.
- The second baggie contained 4.72 grams of crack cocaine and six ecstasy tablets.
- Brooks was in possession of a cell phone and a few dollars.
- Brooks did not have any paraphernalia for smoking crack cocaine on his person, nor did he appear to be under the influence of narcotics.
- A search for a gun yielded no results; no weapon was found.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the trial court convicted the appellant, Brooks, of possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver.
- Brooks appealed his conviction to the Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas.
- On appeal, Brooks argued that the evidence was both legally and factually insufficient to prove the element of 'intent to deliver.'
- The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
- However, the Court of Appeals also held that the evidence was factually insufficient and reversed the trial court's judgment.
- Both the State and Brooks filed petitions for discretionary review, which were granted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there a meaningful distinction between the legal-sufficiency standard of Jackson v. Virginia and the factual-sufficiency standard of Clewis v. State that justifies retaining both standards for appellate review of criminal convictions?
Opinions:
Majority - Hervey, J.
No. There is no longer a meaningful distinction between the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard and the Clewis factual-sufficiency standard, making the retention of both unnecessary. The court traces the evolution of the Clewis standard, noting it was intended to be a less deferential, 'neutral light' review where an appellate court could act as a 'thirteenth juror.' However, Clewis and its progeny created an internal contradiction by also requiring 'appropriate deference' to the jury's credibility and weight determinations to avoid usurping the jury's role. Subsequent decisions, particularly Lancon v. State, effectively eliminated the 'neutral light' review by affirming the jury as the 'sole judge' of credibility, thus making the factual-sufficiency standard functionally indistinguishable from the Jackson legal-sufficiency standard, which requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. This convergence creates double jeopardy concerns under Tibbs v. Florida, as a reversal for 'factual' insufficiency that is substantively a 'legal' insufficiency finding should result in acquittal, not a new trial. Therefore, the Clewis factual-sufficiency standard is overruled, and the Jackson v. Virginia standard is established as the single standard for sufficiency of the evidence review in criminal cases.
Dissenting - Price, J.
Yes. A meaningful and necessary distinction exists between legal and factual sufficiency review, and the plurality errs in abolishing the latter. The premise that the two standards have melded is flawed; viewing evidence in a 'neutral light' for factual sufficiency is distinct from the legal sufficiency standard, which requires resolving all evidentiary conflicts in the State's favor. Factual sufficiency review serves as an important 'interest of justice' safeguard, allowing an appellate court to order a new trial in rare cases where the evidence, though technically legally sufficient, is so tenuous that most juries would harbor a reasonable doubt. The deference required in factual review is qualified, not absolute, and does not render it identical to legal review. The plurality misreads Tibbs v. Florida regarding double jeopardy and ignores the doctrine of stare decisis by overturning over a century of precedent without a sufficiently weighty reason.
Concurring - Cochran, J.
No. The creation of the Clewis factual-sufficiency review was an unworkable effort to superimpose civil law standards onto criminal law, and it should be abolished. There is a logical incompatibility between a review standard developed for a 'preponderance of the evidence' burden of proof and the criminal law's 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Evidence cannot be simultaneously sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the Jackson standard and yet be so weak as to be 'manifestly unjust' under a factual sufficiency review; it is either legally sufficient or it is not. Declaring legally sufficient evidence to be factually insufficient requires an appellate judge to improperly act as a 'thirteenth juror,' substituting a cold record review for the judgment of the twelve citizens who witnessed the evidence firsthand. The 'neutral light' component of factual sufficiency review was a flawed concept from the beginning and has led to confusion and inconsistent results.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant simplification of appellate review in Texas criminal law by eliminating the dual-standard system for evaluating evidentiary sufficiency. It resolves decades of jurisprudential tension and confusion surrounding the deference appellate courts must afford to jury verdicts. By establishing Jackson v. Virginia as the sole standard, the court ensures that any finding of insufficient evidence will result in an acquittal barred by double jeopardy, rather than a remand for a new trial. This ruling brings Texas criminal procedure more in line with the federal system and the majority of other states, which do not conduct a separate factual-sufficiency review.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Brooks v. Texas (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"