 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Payne v. State8/29/2003
Alicia Andrews Payne ("Appellant") was convicted of intoxication manslaughter and sentenced to seventeen years of imprisonment. In one issue, Appellant contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm.
Background
At around noon on July 31, 2000, Appellant was driving westbound on Highway 334 in Seven Points, Texas, when she struck and killed Janette Taylor, a pedestrian who was walking along the highway in the same direction Appellant was traveling. After an investigation by the Seven Points Police Department, Appellant was indicted for intoxication manslaughter on December 28.
Appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge and her case went to trial on August 19, 2002. The jury found Appellant guilty of intoxication manslaughter and also found that Appellant had used a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. The jury also sentenced her to 17 years of imprisonment and imposed a $10,000.00 fine.
Appellant now challenges her conviction on appeal and argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was "intoxicated," as defined in the indictment.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Standard of Review
Legal sufficiency is the constitutional minimum required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to sustain a criminal conviction. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315-16, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2786-787, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); see also Escobedo v. State, 6 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.). The standard for reviewing a legal sufficiency challenge is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 320, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; see also Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The evidence is examined in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 320, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Johnson, 871 S.W.2d at 186. A successful legal sufficiency challenge will result in rendition of an acquittal by the reviewing court. See Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 41-42, 102 S. Ct. 2211, 2217-218, 72 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1982).
In considering factual sufficiency, we must first assume that the evidence is legally sufficient under the Jackson standard. See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We then consider all of the evidence in the record related to Appellant's sufficiency challenge, not just the evidence which supports the verdict. We review the evidence weighed by the jury which tends to prove the existence of the elemental fact in dispute and compare it to the evidence which tends to disprove that fact. Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We are authorized to disagree with the jury's determination, even if probative evidence exists which supports the verdict. Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 133. However, factual sufficiency review must be appropriately deferential so as to avoid the appellate court's substituting its own judgment for that of the fact finder. Our evaluation should not substantially intrude upon the jury's role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of witness testimony. Santellan, 939 S.W.2d at 164. Where there is conflicting evidence, the jury's verdict on such matters is generally regarded as conclusive. See VanZandt v. State, 932 S.W.2d 88, 96 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1996, pet. ref'd). Ultimately, we must ask whether a neutral review of all the evidence, both for and against the finding, demonstrates that the proof of guil
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|