Document Type


Publication Date


Journal Title

American Journal of Criminal Law




Garrett's disturbing outcome is the most egregious in a series of decisions promulgated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals during the past decade. The result is the product of a sufficiency of evidence analysis in which appellate courts compare the evidence presented to the jury charge alone. Such a sufficiency review exceeds the constitutional safeguards announced by the United States Supreme Court. While a state may provide greater rights than those protected by the federal constitution, doing so in this situation represents poor policy and ill-conceived law. This article will explore various methods for analyzing sufficiency of evidence and trace the evolution of Texas cases culminating in Garrett. Finally, the authors will suggest an alternative analysis that is consistent with constitutional due process and avoids the pitfalls of the current scheme.

First Page


Last Page


Volume Number


Issue Number



University of Texas School of Law

Included in

Law Commons


To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.