Ortega v. State (Majority, with Concurring and Dissenting)
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of rape. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. Appellant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred when it refused to submit the jury verdict form by interrogatories. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was substantial evidence of rape under alternate theories of the case sufficient to support the conviction; and (2) because Appellant presented to citation or authority in support of his argument that the court erred when it refused to submit the jury verdict form by interrogatories and because it was not apparent without further research that his argument was well taken, Appellant’s second point on appeal will not be considered.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.