Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Allen v. State

786 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. App. 1990)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Allen v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Allen v. State

    841 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 9 times

    On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals decided the evidence was insufficient to establish that appellant possessed amphetamine. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered appellant's probation to be reinstated. Allen v. State, 786 S.W.2d 738, at 739-740 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1989). On rehearing, the Court of Appeals reiterated that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's judgment.

  2. Champion v. State

    No. 06-04-00141-CR (Tex. App. May. 17, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    "Preponderance of the evidence" has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232, 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935); Allen v. State, 786 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1989), pet. dism'd, 841 S.W.2d 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Hill v. State, 721 S.W.2d 953, 954-55 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1986, no pet.); Davenport v. Cabell's, Inc., 239 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1951, no writ). This standard is met when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant violated a condition of his or her community supervision as the State alleged.

  3. DODD v. STATE

    No. 06-03-00060-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 8, 2004)

    "Preponderance of the evidence" has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232, 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935); Allen v. State, 786 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1989) (op. on reh'g), pet. dism'd, 841 S.W.2d 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). It follows that the State is required to establish guilt by the greater weight and degree of credible testimony.

  4. In the Matter of T.R.S

    115 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that "[w]hen the state's proof of any of the alleged violations of probation is sufficient to support a revocation of probation, the revocation should be affirmed"

    "Preponderance of the evidence" has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232, 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935); Allen v. State, 786 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1989) (op. on reh'g), pet. dism'd, 841 S.W.2d 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Hill v. State, 721 S.W.2d 953, 954-55 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1986, no pet.); Davenport v. Cabell's, Inc., 239 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1951, no writ). It follows that the state is required to establish guilt by the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. This standard is met when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief the defendant violated a condition of his or her probation as the state alleged.

  5. Allbright v. State

    13 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 73 times
    Stating that trial judge determines credibility of witnesses and weight to be given their testimony

    A preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. See Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232, 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935); Allen v. State, 786 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1989), pet. dism'd, 841 S.W.2d 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Appellant admitted to Arthur Lozano, his sex-offender counselor, that he went to A.L.'s house on two occasions to mow the lawn.

  6. Jimerson v. State

    957 S.W.2d 875 (Tex. App. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that a pre-1997 version of Article 42.12 controlled over Article 42.03 such that the trial court had discretion to give a defendant credit for time served from his arrest to his sentencing after revocation of his community supervision

    "Preponderance of the evidence" has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232, 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935); Allen v. State, 786 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1989), pet. dism'd, 841 S.W.2d 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Hill v. State, 721 S.W.2d 953, 954-55 (Tex.App. — Tyler 1986, no pet.); Davenport v. Cabell's, Inc., 239 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1951, no writ). It follows that the State is required to establish guilt by the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. If, when considering the credible testimony, it is just as likely that someone else is guilty, the State has failed to show guilt by the greater weight and degree of credible testimony.