concluding that jury is entitled to accept or reject any portion of witness’s testimony and determines whether to accept defendant’s self-defense theory
How later courts described this case
- concluding that jury is entitled to accept or reject any portion of witness’s testimony and determines whether to accept defendant’s self-defense theory
- finding that the trier of fact may accept or reject any or all of the testimony of any witness
- stating the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony
- recognizing the trier of fact may accept or reject any or all of the testimony of any witness
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I agree substantially with the sufficiency analysis conducted by the court of appeals in reviewing all the evidence, albeit not some of the language it used, Adelman v. State, 731 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1987), while the majority practically resurrects the discredited “some evidence” treatment the Court formerly administered in, e.g., Banks v. State, 510 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), and reprised in Combs v. State, 643 S.W.2d 709, 716-717 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), I respectfully dissent.