# Reyes v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 30, 1996 · 938 S.W.2d 718

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760497

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel REYES, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 30, 1996
- **Citations:** 938 S.W.2d 718; 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 219; 1996 WL 628211
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meyers
- **Judges:** Baird, Meyers, Mansfield, Keller, Mecormick, White
- **Cited by:** 85 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Paulson v. State, 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 89 (2000).
- Negative treatments: 4
- Distinguished by: 4
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760497

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that prior to Geesa v. State, this Court “employed the ‘reasonable-hypothesis-of-innocence’ analytical construct to review the sufficiency of the evidence in circumstantial evidence cases”
- holding that Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), created "an absolute systemic requirement" that the jury be instructed on reasonable-doubt standard
- holding that Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), created “an absolute systemic requirement” that the jury be instructed on reasonable-doubt standard
- stating that Geesa created an absolute systemic requirement that jury be instructed on reasonable-doubt standard

## Opinion text

MEYERS, Judge,
concurring.
The majority characterizes the submission of a reasonable doubt instruction as a systemic requirement that can neither be forfeited nor waived. Thus, the implementation of this requirement “cannot be avoided even with partisan consent” and, by necessary implication, a ease in which both parties requested that the reasonable doubt instruction not be given must be reversed on appeal. *722 Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). Although somewhat troubling, this result cannot be avoided alter our unequivocal language in Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Such a result may, however, compel a majority of this Court to reexamine Geesa in the future and, were that to happen, I might very weE join them in that endeavor.
With these remarks, I join the majority’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760497. Public record. Not legal advice.