Case Name: James Earl BAKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1986-01-15
Citations: 707 S.W.2d 893
Docket Number: No. 135-85
Parties: James Earl BAKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: ONION, P.J., joined by CLINTON and McCORMICK, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 707
Pages: 893–900

Head Matter:
James Earl BAKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 135-85.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Jan. 15, 1986.
Rehearing Denied April 23, 1986.
Herb Ritchie, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and James C. Brough and Casey O’Brien, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huitash, State’s Atty., Alfred Walker, First Asst., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
TOM G. DAVIS, Judge.
A jury found appellant guilty of attempted murder and the court assessed ten years. The First Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed and remanded for a new trial in a published opinion, holding that the jury's implied finding that appellant was not insane was so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. Baker v. State, 682 S.W.2d 701 (1984). We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to examine this holding.
Appellant claims that he established the affirmative defense of insanity as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals treated his claim to be that the verdict rejecting his affirmative defense of insanity was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
In applying the "great weight and preponderance" standard, the Court of Appeals reasoned as follows:
"Under the provisions of the 1980 amendment to art. V, sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution, effective September 1, 1981, the courts of appeals are vested with conclusive authority over all questions of fact presented on appeal. Consistent with that mandate, Tex.Code Crim.P. art. 44.25 (Vernon Supp.1984), likewise effective September 1, 1981, provides that 'courts of appeals . may reverse the judgment in a criminal action, as well upon the law as upon the facts.'
"We interpret this grant of authority to mean, as at least two other courts of appeals have already determined, that we have jurisdiction to consider great weight and ¡ preponderance fact questions in cases involving the affirmative defense of insanity. Van Guilder v. State, 674 S.W.2d 915 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1984, no pet.); Schuessler v. State, 647 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.App.—El. Paso 1983, pet. granted).
"In passing on a challenge that a jury finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, the reviewing court is to consider all the relevant evidence presented. If after doing so it determines that the defendant at trial carried his burden of proof as to an affirmative defense and that the jury's verdict was manifestly unjust, the reviewing court has the duty to reverse the trial court judgment and remand the case for new trial, regardless of whether the record contains some evidence of probative force in support of the verdict. In re King's Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.1951)."
Since the Court of Appeals handed down its opinion in the instant case, we have rejected the argument that the Texas Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure confer jurisdiction on the Courts of Appeals to consider great weight and preponderance of the evidence fact questions in cases involving the affirmative defense of insanity. Van Guilder v. State, — S.W.2d - (No. 899-84, delivered November 6, 1985). In Van Guilder, supra, we held that:
"... in reviewing a case involving an affirmative defense, the court of appeals must review the evidence on the affirmative defense by looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the implicit finding by the jury with respect to such affirmative defense and then determine, by examining all the evidence concerning the affirmative defense, if any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The court of appeals is limited in its review using this preponderance standard to evidence submitted on the issue of the affirmative defense in question. This review is called for when the defendant is contesting the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction because of his assertion that he adequately proved his affirmative defense.... There must be no reweighing or reclassifying of the evidence by the appellate court."
Because the Court of Appeals applied a standard we have rejected in assessing appellant's claim, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court to apply the standard set out in Van Guilder, supra.
. Should the Court of Appeals decide, after applying the Van Guilder standard, that appellant established the affirmative defense of insanity as a matter of law, then the proper disposition is to reverse and order a verdict of acquittal, not a new trial.