Arnold v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided November 19, 1986

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1986-11-19

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1994

7 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The trier of fact was not called on to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution in order to find “the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Rather, its function was to determine whether an accused has proved an affirmative defense “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Whatever standard governs appellate review of that determination is not controlled by the Due Process Clause nor required by Jackson .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ex Parte Schuessler

Relies on Van Guilder v. State · Baker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-11-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ONION, Presiding Judge,

¶1concurring.

¶2I concur in the result only. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict at the competency hearing, I would conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment entered. I do not agree with the extension of Van Guilder v. State, 709 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), the affirmative defense rationality test, to competency hearings. See and cf. dissenting opinion on State’s Motion for Rehearing Overruled Without Written Opinion in Baker v. State, 707 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Cr. App.1986).

McCORMICK, J., joins.