Skip to main content

Williams v. State

Citations

  • 235 S.W.3d 742
  • 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1269
  • 2007 WL 2848986

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that we do not re-evaluate weight and credibility of evidence when reviewing sufficiency of evidence
  • recognizing that an appellate court does not sit as a “thirteenth juror” when reviewing challenges to the 7 sufficiency of the evidence
  • holding that we may not re-evaluate weight and credibility of evidence or substitute our judgment for that of fact-finder
  • holding that we do not re-evaluate weight and credibility of evidence when reviewing sufficiency of evidence
  • recognizing that under legal sufficiency standards the reviewing court may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the record evidence and substitute its judgment for the judgment of the factfinder
  • stating that “[t]he jury,'in all cases, is the exclusive judge of the facts proved, and of the weight to be given to the testimony” except where provided otherwise by law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cochran, Price, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, Keller, Meyers

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,680 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Williams v. State

6,237 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.