In Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), a man dressed entirely in black and wearing a ski mask forced his way into the victim's back seat and ordered her to drive to another location. 23 S.W.3d at 4. After arriving at that location, the victim was blindfolded and forced into the passenger seat. Id. At another location, the victim was untied, undressed, and raped. Id. Although the assailant removed his mask at one point, he never stood directly in front of the headlights to the car, and the victim never had a lengthy, unobstructed view of the assailant's face. Id. The victim believed that she was able to briefly glimpse her attacker's face at one point, but could only pro-vide police with scant details of his overall appearance. Id. The victim was unable to positively identify the perpetrator in photo line-ups. Id. At trial, the victim testified that she was positive the person in the courtroom was her assailant, but stated she was not a hundred percent positive because it was dark, she was blindfolded and scared, he wore a ski mask, and she did not take a good look at him. Id. On appeal, Johnson challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence, asserting the State failed to show that he was the person responsible for carrying out the offenses. Id. at 3. The intermediate appellate court held that the evidence was factually insufficient to prove beyond a reasona-ble doubt that Johnson was the guilty party. Id. The intermediate appellate court focused on the victim's less-than-certain identification of Johnson as the primary reason the conviction could not stand. Id. at 6. The court further noted the additional evidence used to incriminate Johnson could apply to many people other than him. Id. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, asserting the court of appeals "detailed the relevant evidence and determined the accuracy of the victim's in-court identification could not shoulder sufficient reliability to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant carried out the assault." Id. at 12. In Johnson v. State, , the intermediate appellate court had reversed the jury's verdict of guilt because the evidence was factually insufficient to support the verdict. The court of criminal appeals affirmed, holding the intermediate appellate court had both correctly incorpo-rated the true scope of a criminal factual sufficiency review of the elements of an offense and properly per-formed the review. The court of criminal appeals affirmed the reversal of the trial court's judgment because the court of appeals, while giving due deference to the jury's determination that the victim was telling the truth as she knew it, nevertheless distrusted the accuracy of the victim's identification of the defendant. The identification, made several years after the offense occurred, was questionable because of the adverse conditions that existed during the victim's brief and obstructed view of her assailant. In that case, a jury found the defendant guilty of the offense of aggravated sexual assault, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Thirteenth Court of Appeals properly conducted its factual sufficiency review in reversing the defendant's conviction by applying the "insufficient evidence" prong encompassed in a civil factual sufficiency review. Id. at 3, 10-11. Thus, the court held that, as in the civil context, a court of appeals can find, in the criminal context, that the evidence is factually insufficient if "the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the jury's determination." Id. at 11. In Johnson v. State, the witness, a sexual assault victim, testified that she "believed" that she saw her at-tacker's face during the assault. Id. at 5. When she was asked at trial whether she could identify the defendant as her attacker, she said, "I cannot tell a hundred percent that it is him, but I am positive." Id. She testified that she could not be "a hundred percent positive" because it was dark, she was blindfolded, and the defendant wore a mask during the assault. Id. There was also evidence that the witness had given conflicting descriptions of her attacker. Id. at 6. The court of appeals held that the State presented factually insufficient evidence because the witness's in-court identification was too weak to meet the State's burden on the element of identity. Id. at 10. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals' decision to reverse on factual sufficiency grounds. Id. at 12. The Court Criminal Appeals affirmed the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals' reversal of the case based on fac-tually insufficient evidence that Johnson committed aggravated sexual assault. Id. at 12. An assailant unknown to the victim forced his way into her car, drove the car to a remote location, and raped the victim. Id. at 4. The victim "never got a lengthy, unobstructed view of her attacker's face," and could only provide "scant details" to the police regarding the attacker's appearance. Id. The victim could not positively identify her attacker from a line-up, though she noted that Johnson's eyes looked similar to her attacker's. Id. At trial, the victim admitted that her identification of Johnson could not be absolutely certain "because of the conditions and her state of mind." Id. at 5.