Court Opinion

ID: 9664590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:22:01.932708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:07.414440
License: Public Domain

BLEIL, Justice,
concurring.
I wholly agree with the majority’s decision and opinion in this case. I write separately because, under the circumstances of this case, Nielsen’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict might fairly be said to question whether the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient.
The majority correctly states the standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence. We look at all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Rivera v. State, 808 S.W.2d 80, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). I agree that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict.
I would also review for the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, although the authority of courts of appeals to determine whether the evidence pertaining to an element of a criminal offense is insufficient because it is against the great weight of the evidence is currently unsettled. The court of criminal appeals has specifically reserved decision on the question. Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146, 156 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). I believe that under Tex. Const. art. V, § 6 the courts of appeals are conclusive on all fact questions and have the constitutional authority and obligation to decide whether the evidence is factually sufficient. See Susan Bleil & Charles Bleil, The Court of Criminal Appeals Versus the Constitution: The Con-clusivity Question, 23 St. Mary’s L.J. 423 (1991). Recently, a court of appeals has expressed its opinion that courts of appeals have the power and duty to review the factual sufficiency of the evidence relative to the proof of the elements of an offense. See Stone v. State, 823 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref’d, untimely filed). Believing the Stone decision to ex*252press a proper statement of Texas constitutional law, I have reviewed all of the evidence to determine the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. I conclude that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the verdict.
Therefore, because the evidence is both factually and legally sufficient to support the verdict, I concur in the court’s decision.