Case Citator › Geesa v. State

Geesa v. State

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Citation
820 S.W.2d 154
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
615 of 615
Citing cases (total)
2,157
Treatment dates
1992–2000
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Geesa v. State is overruled in part: all 615 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. Paulson v. State directly displaced Geesa's mandatory reasonable-doubt instruction, while In re M.R. declined to extend Geesa's criminal sufficiency rule to civil juvenile proceedings.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions applied Geesa's surviving sufficiency rule, described Geesa's own treatment of older cases, rejected arguments that Paulson displaced more of Geesa, or repeated history parentheticals reporting Paulson's act.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,157 later cases cite Geesa v. State; 615 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Geesa v. State?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overruled Geesa insofar as it required trial courts to instruct juries on the definition of reasonable doubt.

    Paulson v. State · Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · filed

    We overrule that part of our decision in Geesa that required an instruction on the definition of reasonable doubt. We also overrule Reyes in its entirety.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Fort Worth Court of Appeals declined to extend Geesa's abolition of the reasonable-hypothesis sufficiency analysis to civil juvenile proceedings.

    In re M.R. · Fort Worth Court of Appeals · filed

    We are unpersuaded by the State’s argument that the reasonable hypothesis analysis is no longer the correct test in light of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ abrogation of it in Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 160-61 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). The Geesa opinion dealt with criminal law, while we are here guided by civil law even though that civil law draws heavily upon criminal law precedent in non-juvenile cases.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Geesa v. State and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace