PD-0210-09, Kelvin Kianta Brooks v. State: The CCA granted discretionary review with oral argument in this possession of cocaine case out of McLennan County on the following issues:
For Brooks:The Court of Appeals erred in holding the evidence was legally sufficient to establish appellant had the intent to distribute cocaine, where the court found the same evidence was factually insufficient to establish the necessary intent.For the State:1. Is there any meaningful distinction between legal sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia and factually sufficiency review when that review is limited to the weakness of the evidence in the abstract and, if so, does it escape review in this Court?
2. Did the Tenth Court of Appeals ignore its duty to adequately explain why the evidence, though legally sufficient, is so weak as to render the jury's verdict clearly wrong and manifestly unjust?
Click here to read the court of appeals opinion. Click here to read my summary of the court of appeals opinion.
