Fernando Lancon, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State's petition for discretionary review to decide whether the court of appeals correctly applied the Watson factual-sufficiency standard when it reversed Fernando Lancon's convictions for murder, attempted murder, and deadly conduct. The Court held that although the court of appeals accurately recited the standard and addressed all the evidence, it misapplied it by failing to defer to the jury's role as sole judge of witness credibility, overlooking evidence supporting the verdict (such as the eyewitness's immediate identification of appellant), and treating pure credibility conflicts as an objective basis for reversal. Because the case turned almost entirely on credibility, the Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded for a factual-sufficiency review conducted in accordance with Watson. Judge Johnson, joined by Judges Price and Holcomb, dissented that the court of appeals properly applied the standard and that the factual-conclusivity clause barred re-evaluation; Judge Womack also dissented.