 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hubbard v. State5/25/1999
t could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 160 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We review the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. See Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The evidence is factually insufficient if, after viewing all of the evidence without the prism of in the light most favorable to the judgment, the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
It was the jury's role, as fact finder, to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and to determine what weight to give to their testimony. See Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 407, 408-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Bonham v. State, 680 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 (1985). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Santellan, 939 S.W.2d at 160. Likewise, after reviewing the entire record, we conclude the verdict of guilt was not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 129. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's points of error.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
CAROLYN WRIGHT JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3
981073F.U05
|