# Adelman v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 4, 1992 · 828 S.W.2d 418

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858667

## Case

- **Full name:** Mirella ADELMAN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 4, 1992
- **Citations:** 828 S.W.2d 418; 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41; 1992 WL 38115
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clinton
- **Judges:** McCormick, Clinton, Benavides
- **Cited by:** 1,121 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858667

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- discussing standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence to reject a defense

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858667. Public record. Not legal advice.