Mario Gonzales, Jr. v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that expert testimony was not needed due to circumstantial evidence; the trooper “immediately detected the odor of marijuana” and the driver admitted to smoking marijuana hours before driving
• stating that because “a successful sufficiency of the evidence claim warrants discharge on the pertinent crime, we shall address this issue first” (citation omitted)
• stating that a jury “is free to believe all, none, or some of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses”
• stating that “impairment evidence should be drawn from the totality of the factual circumstances” (citation omitted)
• explaining that it is the finder of fact’s responsibility to resolve contradictory testimony and questions of credibility
• noting that a police officer “may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).