Zuniga v. State

In Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that, when an appellant challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court must determine whether, considering all of the evidence in a neutral light, the jury was rationally justified in reaching its verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 484. There are two ways in which the verdict may be factually insufficient. First, the evidence supporting the verdict, if considered alone, may be too weak to support the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Second, if--when weighing the evidence supporting and contravening the conviction--the reviewing court concludes contrary evidence is strong enough, but the State could not have met its burden of proof, then the evidence must be held to be insufficient. Id. at 484-85. "Stated another way, evidence supporting guilt can 'outweigh' the contrary proof and still be factually insufficient under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard." Id. at 485.