Tommy G. Laster, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Laster's conviction for attempted aggravated kidnapping, holding the evidence legally sufficient and the court of appeals's factual sufficiency analysis correct. The Court disavowed the court of appeals's statement that circumstantial evidence of intent is reviewed less rigorously than other evidence, clarifying that all evidence — direct or circumstantial, including proof of intent — must be reviewed under the same sufficiency standards. It further held that secreting or holding the victim is a mens rea element, so the State need not prove actual secreting or holding, and that its review of a court of appeals's factual sufficiency ruling is limited to whether the correct legal standard was applied. Judge Cochran, joined by three other judges, dissented that the equivocal evidence showed at most unlawful restraint and would have reformed the conviction and remanded for a new punishment hearing.