Zuniga v. State
- Decided
- April 21, 2004
- Docket
- 539-02
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 2,472 timesAbrogated (verified)Abrogated (verified) · Marcelino Eli Esparza v. the State of Texas
What later courts said
- holding that Meraz standard is suitable for sufficiency reviews regarding affirmative defenses because burden of proof on defendant is preponderance of evidence — Jose Antonio Moncivais v. State (2011)
- holding that Meraz standard was suitable for sufficiency reviews regarding affirmative defenses because burden of proof on defendant is preponderance of evidence — Jonathan Andrew Rosario v. State (2015)
- holding that Meraz standard is suitable for sufficiency reviews regarding affirmative defenses because burden of proof on defendant is preponderance of evidence — Glenn Edward Champagne v. State (2012)
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 MEYERS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which PRICE, JOHNSON, KEASLER, HERVEY, HOLCOMB, and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.
Appellant Jose Zuniga was charged in two counts with intoxication manslaughter and manslaughter. The jury acquitted him of intoxication manslaughter but found him guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for factual insufficiency of the evidence and remanded the case for a new trial.
Zuniga v. State, No. 07-00-0461-CR, 2001 WL 1464147 (Tex.App.-Amarillo November 19, 2001, pet. granted) (not designated for publication). We granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeals’ review of the factual sufficiency of the evidence conflicts with [*479] decisions of this Court and the United States Supreme Court.
Cite this
Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (2004)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.