Walker, Kenneth Neal, PD-1429-14

Kenneth and Shelley Walker adopted three grandchildren; one child, B.W., suffered scald burns to both feet and was the charged victim.
Emergency calls: burns noticed ~8:35–8:38 a.m.; EMS dispatched ~8:56 a.m.; initial on-scene officers observed the tub still full.
Police testing after arrival increased the water heater to maximum and later measured tap/tub temperatures up to ~128–131°F; expert testimony varied on how long at those temperatures would produce second-degree burns.
Medical evidence: treating experts agreed burns could heal without grafting if treated; State experts suggested immersion caused the burns, while defense expert Dr. Lawrence—who inspected the scene—concluded the injuries were accidental and that the Walkers lacked the physical ability to forcibly hold B.W. in the tub.
Investigation facts in dispute: absence of splash marks or grasp/bruising, bathtub sliding-door off track, scratches on B.W., prior incidents where children overflowed bathroom fixtures, and an officer who initially characterized the incident as accidental.

Issue	Walker's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction (legal vs. factual sufficiency)	Brooks elimination of Clewis factual-sufficiency review was erroneous; evidence is factually insufficient — verdict is against overwhelming weight and rests on stacked inferences	Court of Appeals correctly applied Jackson/Brooks legal-sufficiency standard and found evidence adequate to support conviction	Court of Appeals affirmed under Brooks (legal-sufficiency); petitioner asks CCA to reinstate/reevaluate factual-sufficiency standard and reverse/remand
Whether the verdict rests on impermissible speculation/inference-stacking	Verdict depends on successive speculative inferences (heater setting changed on-scene; lack of physical marks inconsistent; Walkers physically incapable), so conviction is speculative and unjust	Inferences drawn by jury and appellate court were reasonable from the evidence presented; conflicting inferences favor verdict under Jackson standard	Appellate court accepted successive inferences as reasonable under legal-sufficiency review; petitioner argues this permits speculative verdicts and seeks reversal

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (eliminated Clewis factual-sufficiency review and endorsed Jackson legal-sufficiency as exclusive standard)
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (recognized appellate factual-sufficiency review and set aside verdicts contrary to overwhelming weight of evidence)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (federal constitutional legal-sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (distinguishes permissible inferences from impermissible speculation)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate review must assess whether inferences supporting conviction are reasonable when viewed cumulatively)