explaining that if jury charge contains instructions for alternative counts but only authorizes conviction on one count, “[n]o double jeopardy problems are extant . . . because the jury returns either an acquittal or a verdict of guilty on one count only”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that if jury charge contains instructions for alternative counts but only authorizes conviction on one count, “[n]o double jeopardy problems are extant . . . because the jury returns either an acquittal or a verdict of guilty on one count only”
- noting that "[i]t is well established that the improper admission of evidence does not 5 constitute reversible error if the same facts are shown by other evidence which is not challenged"
- noting that “[i]t is well established that the improper admission of evidence does not constitute reversible error if the same facts are shown by other evidence which is not challenged”
- AWe disavow the language in our opinion on original submission that addressed the sufficiency of the evidence to prove causation in terms of >reasonable medical probability.= That term has no role to play in the law of burden of proof in criminal cases.@
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
Motion for leave to file motion for rehearing was granted in this case to address the standard of proof on the sufficiency of the evidence to prove causation. The constitutionally required burden of proof in criminal cases is that the State establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See, Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d (1970). We disavow the language in our opinion on original submission that addressed the sufficiency of the evidence to prove causation in terms of “reasonable medical probability.” That term has no role to play in the law of burden of proof in criminal cases. From the evidence set out in the opinion on original submission, we hold the issue was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.