Lincoln v. Hanks, Appellant, v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that appellate factual‑sufficiency review is limited to the sufficiency of the State's proof of the elements of the offense and does not extend to issues of evidence admissibility under Article 38.23(a). The majority reasoned that sufficiency and admissibility are distinct, and that allowing review of the latter would substitute the appellate court for the jury on credibility determinations. The Court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence. Justice WOMACK, dissenting, would have vacated the judgment and remanded for a factual‑sufficiency review of the Article 38.23(a) issue.