for the defense for the defense - Voice For The Defense Online

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay,
or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Rule 404(b), Texas Rules of Evidence states as follows:
(b) Other crimes, wrongs or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character
of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible
for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or
absence of mistake or accident, provided, upon timely request by the accused, reasonable notice is given
in advance of trial of intent to introduce in the State’s case in chief such evidence other than that arising
in the same transaction.
II.
The State of Texas is seeking the introduction of extraneous offenses. Such evidence may be admissible where it
“makes more or less probable” an evidentiary fact that leads to an element or “make more or less probable” defensive
evidence that undermines (or negates) an elemental fact. (Rule 401 and 402 T.R.E.).
Even if evidence is deemed relevant, such is still not admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed
by its danger of unfair prejudice or propensity to confuse, delay, mislead or cumulate. (Rule 403 T.R.E.).
III.
The Defendant objects to the admission of such extraneous offense evidence under: Rules 401, 402, and 403(b)
T.R.E. and requests the State to prove such evidence has relevance other than proving character of person to show he
acted in conformance with the conduct alleged.
IV.
If the Court overrules the objection in paragraph III above, the Defendant hereby requests that the Court make
findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its determination that the evidence (1) establishes an elemental fact,
(2) establishes an evidentiary fact that inferentially leads to an elemental fact, (3) rebuts a defensive theory, or (4) has
some other logical relevance.
V.
Further, the Defendant requests that the Court properly instruct the jury to confine and limit its consideration of
such evidence to the purpose articulated by the State.
VI.
Still further, the Defendant would also, due to the Court admitting such evidence, object because of the unfair
prej u dice, confusion, misleading nature, delay and/or accumulation resulting from this evidence (Rule 403 T.R.E.). Additionally,
the Defendant requests the Court make findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to this evidence
causing unfair prejudice, confusing, misleading, delay and/or accumulation.
AUTHORITY
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, ________________ prays that the State be ordered to provide said discovery
relating to witnesses in this case as requested in this motion.
Attorney for _____________________