concluding that “no evidence” standard for legal-sufficiency review was “expressly forbidden” by United States Supreme Court by Jackson v. Virginia
How later courts described this case
- concluding that “no evidence” standard for legal-sufficiency review was “expressly forbidden” by United States Supreme Court by Jackson v. Virginia
- holding that intent to steal was inferable from the fact that defendant entered a cab, executed the driver, and ransacked the pocket of the decedent
- rejecting language that evidence is sufficient "if there is any evidence which, if believed, shows the guilt of the accused" as inconsistent with Jackson and constitutionally impermissible
- rejecting language that evidence is sufficient Aif there is any evidence which, if believed, shows the guilt of the accused@ as inconsistent with Jackson and constitutionally impermissable
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Geesa v. State, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240 (1991)
769 S.W.2d 234, 239 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154
The opinion
CAMPBELL, Justice,
concurring:
Since neither the appellant nor the State has requested a re-examination of the decision in Combs, I see no reason to overrule it. However, I believe the correct result was reached by the majority, thus I concur in its judgment.