Johnson v. State
23 S.W.3d 1 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2000
Facts
After working, K_C_ was abducted from her apartment parking lot by a masked man who forced her to drive to remote locations. She was then raped. During the assault, the assailant briefly removed his mask, but K_C_'s view was obstructed. She later described him and identified appellant's eyes as "similar" in a photo lineup, and a composite sketch resembled him. Appellant was arrested nearly two years later, escaped jail, and was later apprehended. DNA evidence linked him to the crime, and he was familiar with the assault locations.
Procedural history
Jimmie Lee Johnson was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault by a jury in Gonzales County. He appealed to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, which reversed his conviction, finding the evidence factually insufficient to prove his identity as the perpetrator. The District Attorney and State Prosecuting Attorney then filed petitions for discretionary review, bringing the case to this Court.
Issue
The court must determine if the Clewis factual sufficiency standard of review remains valid and, if so, whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied this standard in reviewing the evidence for aggravated sexual assault.
Holding
The court affirmed the validity of the Clewis factual sufficiency standard, clarified its complete formulation, and found that the Court of Appeals properly applied it in reversing the conviction.
Rule
The Clewis factual sufficiency standard requires appellate courts to view all evidence neutrally, setting aside a verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. This standard encompasses two formulations: evidence is factually insufficient if it is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or if the adverse finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the available evidence. This allows for review when the State's proof of guilt is obviously weak or greatly outweighed by contrary proof, while still deferring to the jury's credibility determinations unless the record clearly indicates a manifest injustice. When reversing, the appellate court must detail the evidence and clearly state why the jury's finding is factually insufficient.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.