Brooks v. State

323 S.W.3d 893 · 2010

Facts

Appellant was convicted by a jury of possessing with intent to deliver crack cocaine. Police went to a bar to investigate a report of a man matching appellant’s description with a gun. When officers asked appellant to step outside, he ran and threw two baggies towards a pool table before being tased. One baggie contained marijuana, and the other contained 4.72 grams of crack cocaine and six ecstasy tablets. Appellant also had a cell phone and some money but no drug paraphernalia. An experienced drug-enforcement investigator testified that 4.72 grams was a "dealer amount" and that typical users possess less and carry paraphernalia. Appellant denied possessing the crack cocaine and ecstasy.

Issue

Is there a meaningful distinction between the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard and the Clewis factual-sufficiency standard, and should both standards be retained for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases?

Holding

The court overruled Clewis v. State, deciding that the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard is the only standard a reviewing court should apply to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to reconsider the sufficiency of the evidence under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.

Rule

The Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard is the sole standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases. The court overruled the Clewis factual-sufficiency standard, finding it had become indistinguishable from Jackson due to its contradictory requirement of deference to jury credibility and weight determinations, which negated its "neutral light" review. This created confusion, potential double-jeopardy issues under Tibbs v. Florida, and was inconsistent with historical Texas jurisprudence. The Jackson standard requires a reviewing court to consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if a jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.