Johnson v. State
- Decided
- February 9, 2000
- Docket
- 1915-98
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 6,445 timesOverruled on other grounds (verified)Overruled on other grounds (verified) · Terrance Lee Harvey v. State
What later courts said
- holding that the degree of deference a reviewing court provides must be proportionate with the facts it can accurately glean from the trial record — Pearson, Demarcus v. State (2002)
- holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony — Railsback, Charles Denver v. State (2002)
- holding that Clewis is to be read as adopting the complete civil factual insufficiency formulation — in Re: Dannie Lee Mitchell, Relator (2001)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION MANSFIELD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which MEYERS, HOLLAND, WOMACK, & JOHNSON, J.J., joined.
After a jury trial in Gonzales County, appellant, Jimmie Lee Johnson, was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault. Johnson v. State, 978 S.W.2d 703 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1998). The jury recommended that appellant pay a $10,000 fine and serve a term of life imprisonment, and judgment was rendered accordingly. On direct appeal to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, appellant challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence after asserting that the State failed to prove an essential element of the offense charged. Specifically, appellant argued that the State failed to show that appellant was the person responsible for carrying out the aggravated sexual assault. In a two-member majority opinion, the Court of Appeals held that, while the State proved a rape did occur, the evidence was factually insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was the guilty party, and a “manifest injustice” would occur if this conviction was allowed to stand.[1] Johnson v. State, 978 S.W.2d at 707.
The District Attorney and the State Prosecuting Attorney each filed petitions for discretionary review. The two questions presented ask this Court to determine (1) whether the Clewis factual sufficiency standard of review is still valid and, (2) if so, whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the correct standard of review in this case. See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). The Court of Criminal Appeals, while not permitted to conduct a de novo factual sufficiency review, can be called upon to determine whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of [*4] review and considered all of the relevant evidence. Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 408 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). This Court’s only recourse in the event of an improper application of the factual sufficiency review is to reverse the Court of Appeals decision and remand, with instructions, for the appropriate review. Ibid.
Cite this
Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (2000)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.