Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): results when an extraneous matter is so intertwined with the State’s proof of the charged offense that avoiding reference to it would make the State’s case incomplete or difficult to understand. Id. at 732. The evidence at trial indicated that Appellant pulled the brass knuckles from his pocket as Gary initially approached him in the parking lot. The evidence was relevant to Appellant’s intent and was arguably part of an indivisible criminal transaction. We conclude the evidence was admissible as same transaction contextual evidence because the events are so interwoven that avoiding reference to Appellant’s retrieval of the brass knuckles would make the State’s case incomplete or difficult to understand. See Amaya v. State, 759 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1988, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>). The trial court did not abuse its discretion 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial courts erroneous instruction on the nonexistent included offense of attempted reckless manslaughter was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the jury reached a unanimous guilty verdict as to the charged offense of attempted murder in the second degree (B) holding that although the investigation of the traffic offense that served as the basis for the stop was complete when the officer issued the citation the officers continued detention of the appellant thereafter for a canine search was lawful because during the investigation of the traffic offense the officer had developed a reasonable suspicion that the appellant had committed a drugrelated offense (C) holding attempted theft that preceded the charged shooting offense was relevant to the motivation for the ensuing violent confrontation between appellant and the theft victims older brothers because the facts of the two incidents were so interwoven as to necessitate admission of evidence of both for a full contextual evaluation of the indicted offense by the jury (D) holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense (E) holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same
Output (English): holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same