Holz v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, although testimony could raise issues of admissibility or sufficiency, “[i]n this case the issue is the sufficiency of the evidence, because that is the issue raised by the appellant.”
• relying on Sullivan v. State, 701 S.W.2d 905, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)
• distinguishing between evidence of damage and evidence of cost of repair
• owner conceded “he did not attempt to ascertain the cost or feasibility of cleaning the carpet rather than replacing it”
• ―Sullivan affirmed that fair market value should be used to establish the value of property stolen in theft cases, and held that an owner’s testimony was sufficient to prove fair market value.‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).