SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 66.3(a) ( one re ason for grantingdiscretionar

y revie w is “whe ther a 1 court of a ppeals’ de cision conflicts with another court of a

ppeals’ de cision on the same issue” ). T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 37.07, § 3(g ). 2 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0924- 09
R O BE R T L EE W O R TH Y , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE ELEVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

BROW N CO UNTY C OCHRAN , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h P RI CE , W OMACK , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H E RVEY and H OL C OM B , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P .J ., f i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h M E YE RS , J ., jo in e d . OP I NI ON W e gr ant ed appel l ant ’ s pet i t i on fordi s cr et i onar yr evi ew t o r es ol ve a c onfl i ctamong t he cour t s of appe al s conce r ni ng w het herA r t i cl e 37
. 0 7 , § 3( g) , r equi r es t he St at e t o gi ve 1 2 pr et r i al not i ce of

“s ame- t r ans act i on cont ex tual ev ide nce” t hati t i nt ends t o offe r i n t heWorthy Pag e 2

74 S.W .3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding that the notice re quirement of T EX . C ODE 3 C R IM . P R OC . art. 37.07, § 3(g ), applies only to extrane ous offe nse evide nce of fer ed duringthe State ’s punis hme nt c a se -i n- c hie f, jus t a s Ru le 40 4(b) re qu ir e s n oti c e on ly of e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e evidenc e off

ere d in the State’s ca se-in-c hief duringthe guilt st ag e). Id. at 3. 4 W or thy v . S tate , 295 S.W .3d 685, 689-90 (Te x . App.—Eastland 2009)
. 5 puni s hm ent s t age of a non- capi t al t r i al
. W e concl ude t hat i t does not . B ui l di ng u p o n our pr i or opi ni on i n J

a u b e rt v . S ta te , w e hol d t hatA r t i cl e 37. 07, § 3( g) , w hi ch expl i ci t l ys t at es 3 th a t th e n o tice re q u ire m e n t a p p lies “ in th e sa m e m a n n e r re q u ire d b yR u le 4 0 4 (b ),” r e f e rs to t he s cope of

t he evi d en ce o ffe r ed as w el l as t o t he t i m i ng of t he evi dence offe r ed. 4 T her efor e, beca us e pr et r i al not i ce of “s ame- t r ans act i on cont extual evi dence ” i s not r equi r ed
u n d er R u le 40 4 (b), i t i s also n o t r eq u ir e d u n d er A rt icl e 3 7
. 0 7 , § 3 (g). W e a ff ir m the c o u rt of appe al s , w hi ch had, i n es s ence , hel d t he s ame. 5 A . F a cts A pp ell an t pl ed gui l t yt o t w o count s of s exual as s aul tof a c hi l d undert he age of
se v e n tee n a n d re q u e ste d th a t a ju ry a ss e ss p u n ish m e n t. T h e ju ry h e a rd th a t ap p e llan t an d h is then -w ife, S h erryW o rt h y , too k fo u rt ee n -y ea r-old R
. T
. into their B row n w o o d h o m e. R
. T
. ’s
m o ther h ad d ied , a n d h e r f a ther w as in p ri so n . R
. T
. w as a frien d o f a p p ell an t’ s d au g h ter, C andi ce, and i t w as C andi ce w ho as ked herpar ent s t o l etR
. T
. l i ve w it h them
. R
. T
. w as dr opped off

byt w o of heraunt s w it h a sing le sac k of cl ot hes
. A ppel l antand hi s w i fe pr ovi ded for R
. T
. and gave hernew cl ot hes , herow n r oom , and “mor e mat er i al t hi ngs ” t han
s he had e verhad. A ft erR
. T
. t ol d appel l ants he w an ted to b e a p il ot , he t ook herup i n aWorthy Pag e 3 pr i vat e pl ane. W i t hi n a few m ont hs , appel l ant ’ s r ough hous i ng w i t h R
. T
. beca m e s exual i n natur e. T h e yc a rrie d o n a se c re t af f a ir in th e f

a m ilyh o m e . A b o u t o n c e a w e e k , ap p e llan t w o u ld w a lk out of t he fr ont door and t hen s neak ba ck i n t hr ough R
. T
. ’ s bedr oom w i ndow and have s ex
w i t h her
. E ventual l y , S h erryW or t hyr eal i zed s om et hi ng nefa r i ous w as goi ng on, and s he k ick e d b o th h e r h u sb a n d a n d R .T . o u t o f th e h o u se . S h e rry late r d iv o rc e d a p p e llan t. A ppel l antand R
. T
. t hen s penta coupl e of ni ght s atm ot el s , fi r s t i n C o m anche , t hen i n St ephenvi l l e. N ext , R
. T
. m oved i n w i t h t he R us s el l s –a fa m i l yw ho had pr evi ous l yt aken in h e r t w in s is te r. A p p e lla n t, m e a n w h ile , m o v e d in w ith h is s te p -b ro th e r, C la u d e S e lle rs . O verappel l ant ’ s obj ect i ons , t he j ur y hear d t hat Sel l er s w as hi m s el f a r egi s t er ed s ex offe nder
. W hi l e l i vi ng w i t h t he R us s el l s , R
. T
. w oul d pr et end t o s pend t he nigh t w it h her gi r l fr i end, Han nah, beca us e H annah l i ved cl os e t o Sel l er s ’ s apart m ent . A ppel l antw oul d pi ck her up, and t hey w oul d have s ex at Sel l er s ’ s apar t m ent . A ppel l antt es t i fi ed t hathe knew t hat t aki ng R
. T
. t o t hat apar t m ent w as a vi ol at i on of hi s s t ep- br ot her ’ s comm uni t ys uper vi s i on, but he sai d t hat he “t ook pr eca ut i ons . ” A ppel l antexpl ai ned t hathe us ed a s epar at e entr ance t o t h e a p a r t me n t a n d i ns t a l l e d a p a d l o c k o n h i s d o o r s o t h a t S e l l e r s “ h a d n o a c c e s s t o my
ro o m a n d h e h a d n o k n o w le d g e o f w h a t w a s g o in g o n .” A ft er a fe w w eeks , R
. T
. and hers i s t erw entt o l i ve w i t h t hei r A unt C hr i s t yi n Sant o, T e x a s. A p p e llan t m o v e d in to a c a m p e r a t th e h o u se f o r a b o u t a m o n th . W h e n A u n t C h risty found out t hat R
. T
. and appel l ant s t i l l had a r om ant i c r el at i ons hi p, s he t ook R
. T
. t o t he pol i ce.Worthy Pag e 4

For purposes of this appe al, we a ssume, without deciding , that evidenc e of a ppellant’s 6 a c t of takin gR.T . to Se lle rs ’s a pa rtme nt k no wi ngthat Se lle rs wa s a re g ist e re d s e x off

e nd e r w a s a “ ba d a c t” by

a pp e lla nt. These w eretied to the two nights spent in motels in Comanche a nd Stephenville. 7 The c onduct itself is pled in the second c ount of the indictment. The f irst count alleg ed 8 an off ense in B rown County

“on or a bout the 1st day

of De cembe r 2003,” a

nd the sec ond count alleg ed an of

fensein Brown County

“on or a bout the 4th day

of September

2004.” Claude Sellers lived in Brownwood (in B rown County ), and R.T. lived with the Russells and visited appellant at Sellers’s apa

rtment duringthe summer of 2004. Thus, thesexual acts occur ringat Sellers’s apa

rtment wer e cove red by

the indictment. Se eRo dr igu e z v . S tate , 104 S.W .3d 87, 91 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 03 ) ( a bs e nt e le c tio n, e vid e nc e of mul tip le oc c ur

re nc e s o f a

n a c t a lle g e d in In al l , t he sexu al l i ai son las t ed ab ou t nine m on t hs. R .T
. , w ho w as ninet een at t he t i m e of t ri al , t est i fi ed t hat she had been i n lov e w ith
a p p e l l a n t , a n d h e wi t h h e r . R. T. t o l d t h e j u r y , “ I j u s t d o n ’ t wa n t a n y t h i n g t o h a p p e n t o h i m. T h a t’s it.” N o n e th e les s, th e ju ryse n ten c e d a p p e llan t to e ig h t y e a rs in p riso n o n e a c h c o u n t. B . D i rec t A ppeal I n t he cour t of appe al s , appel l ant ar gued t hat t he t r i al cour t er r ed i n admi t t i ng evi dence t hat hi s s t ep- br ot her w as a r egi s t er ed s ex offe nder beca us e t he St at e fai l ed t o g ive p retr i al not i ce of i t s i nt en t t o offe r t hatevi dence
. T he St at e had pr ovi ded a doc um entent i t l ed 6 “N ot i ce of

I nt ent t o O ffe r E vi dence of P r i or C onvi ct i ons and Ext r aneous O ffe ns es ” w hi ch l i s t ed ( 1) s exual offe ns es agai ns t R
. T
. t hatt ook pl ace i n C om anche and Era t h C ount i es , ( 2) 7 a t hr eatappel l antm ade a gai ns t R
. T
. , and (3) appel l ant ’ s admi s s i on t hathe had a n ongoi ng
s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h R. T. f o r s e ve r a l mo n t h s . Th i s a d mi s s i o n e n c o mp a s s e d t h e t i me per i od appel l ant l i ved w i t h hi s s t ep- br ot her , al t hough Sel l er s i s not expl i ci t l ynamed i n t he St at e’ s not i ce. 8Worthy Pag e 5

theindic tme nt i s n ot “ e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e ” e vid e nc e ; e ve ry

a c t f or wh ic h e vid e nc e is p re se nte d is cover ed by

the indictment and, upon convic tion, is j eopardy-bar red)
. W orthy , 295 S.W .3d at 689-90. 9 Pa tto n v . S

tate , 25 S.W .3d 387, 392 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref ’d). 10 W alt mo n v . S tate , 76 S.W .3d 148, 155-56 (Te x . App.—B eaumont 2002, no pet.)
. 11 T he cour t of appe al s r ej ect ed appe l l ant ’ s ar gum ent , hol di ng t hat th e evi dence w as
s ame- t r ans act i on cont extual evi dence r at hert han extr aneous - offe ns e evi dence : T he evi dence t hatW or t hy , i n comm i t t i ng t he off ens e forw hi ch he w as char ged, vi ol at ed t he condi t i ons of hi s s t epbr ot her ’ s comm unit y s uper vi s i on t hatan uns uper vi s ed chi l d unders event een notbe ath i s pl ace of r es i dence –s how i ng hi s di s r egar d forcondi t i ons of comm uni t ys uper vi s i on and pl ac i n g t h e c o mpl a i n a n t i n j e o p a r d y
– i s p a r t o f t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e c r i m e for w hi ch he w as bei ng t r i ed and i s not an extr aneous bad ac t . C ons equent l y , t he S tat e’s introd u cti o n o f

this ev iden ce w as n o t i n v iolati o n o f th e tri al co u rt ’s or der , w hi ch onl yr el at ed t o ext r aneous bad ac t s . A s t he St at e not es , t he t r i al c o u r t a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n u n d e r t h e i mpr e s s i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was n ot cont extual and w as s ubj ectt o t he not i ce r equi r ement and t hatadequa t e not i ce had been gi ven. B eca us e t he evi dence r el at ed t o t he cont extof t he off ens e for w hi ch he w as char ged and not conduct t hat w as ext r aneous t o hi s comm i s s i on of t hatoffe ns e, w e conc l ude tha t the t r i al cour t w as i n er r or i n i t s r eas oni ng. W e r ej ectt he as s um pt i on i n W or t hy ’ s ar gum ent s t hatt hi s evi dence cons i s t s of extr aneo us bad act s. 9 A ppel l ant as ks t hi s C our t t o r es ol ve a confl i cti n t he cour t s of appe al s aboutw het her A r t i cl e 37. 07, § 3( g) ’ s not i ce r equi r ement encompas s es s ame- t r ans act i on cont extual evi dence
. T he E as t l and ( i n t hi s cas e) and A us t i n cour t s have hel d t hati t does not , w hi l e t he 10 B eaum on t cou rthas held t hat i t do es. W e agree w i t h the E ast l and and A ust i n co urt s. 11 C . A rt i cl e 37. 07, § 3 (g)’ s not i ce r equi rem ent does not encom pass s am et rans act i on cont extual evi dence.Worthy Pag e 6

T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . a rt . 3 7. 07 , § 3( g ). Th at se c tio n r e a ds a s f oll ow s: 12 On timely reque st of the def

endant, noticeof intent to introduce e videnceunder this article shall be g iven in the same ma nner r equire d by

Rule 404(b), Te x as Rules of Evidence . I f the attorney repr esentingthe state intends to introducean extraneous crime or bad a ct that has not re sulted in a final convic tion in a court of re c ord o r a

pr ob ate d o r s us pe nd e d s e nte nc e , n oti c e of that inte nt i s r e a so na

bleon ly if theno tic e inc lud e s th e date on wh ic h a nd thec ounty

in whic h th e a lle g e d c ri me or ba d a c t oc c ur

re d a nd thename of

thea lle g e d v ic timof

thec ri me or

ba d a c t. The re quirement unde r this subsection that the attorne y repr esentingthe state g ive notice applies only

if the def endant make s a timely

reque st to the attorney repr esentingthe state for

the notice. T EX . R. E V ID . 404(b). 13 I n di s cus s i ng t he admi s s i on of evi dence dur i ng t he puni s hm entphas e of a non- capi t al trial, A rt ic le 3 7 .0 7 , § 3 (g ) sta tes , “O n tim e lyre q u e st o f th e d e f e n d a n t, no tice o f

in ten t to in tro d u c e e v id e n c e u n d e r th is a rticle sh a ll b e g iv e n in th e sa m e m a n n e r re q u ire d b yR u le 4 0 4 (b ), T e x a s R u le s o f E v id e n c e ,” a n d th e n re f e rs to a n “ e x tr a n e o u s c ri m e o r b a d a c t.” 12 Rul e 40 4( b) , i n tur n, pr ov i de s t ha t , i n c e r t a i n c i r c ums t a nc e s , “ [e ] vi de nc e of ot he r c r i m es,
w r ongs or act s ” may be admi s s i bl e “pr ovi ded t hatupon t i m el yr eques t bythe ac cus ed i n a
cr i m i nal cas e, r eas onabl e not i ce i s gi ven i n advanc e of t r i al of i nt entt o i nt r oduce i n t he S tat e’ s cas e- i n- chi ef s uch evi dence ot hert han t hatar i s i ng i n t he s ame t r ans act i on. ” T he 13 q u esti o n h ere , as in o u r prior Jau bertdeci s i on, i s w hen i s p retri al n ot i ce r equi r ed under A r t i cl e 37. 07, § 3( g) ? The ans w eri s t hatpr et r i al not i ce mustbe gi ven underA r t i cl e 37. 07, § 3 (g ), o n ly w h e n p re tr ia l n o tic e is re q u ir e d u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ). I n Jau bert , w e h e ld th a t, be c a u se A rticle 3 7 .0 7 , § 3 (g ), in c o rp o ra tes b yre f e re n c e R u le 4 0 4 (b )’s m a n n e r o f

g iv in g n o tice a n d R u le 4 0 4 (b )’s n o tice re q u ire m e n t en c o m p a ss e s o n ly
c a se -in -c h ief

e v id e n c e , A r tic le 3 7 .0 7 , § 3 (g )’s n o tice re q u ire m e n t “a p p e a rs o n its f a c e ” toWorthy Pag e 7

Jaubert, 74 S.W. 3d

at 3. We f

ur the r n ote d th at c omm on

law a lso fa

vo re d th is 14 lim itatio n b e c a

us e thede fe nd ant d e te rm ine s whe the r a c onte ste d is su e wi ll b e raise d, and his decision will not be made known until he presents his ca se. Id. at 3-4. Id. 15 76 S.W .3d 148 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 2002, no pet.). 16 encompas s onl y puni s hm ent cas e- i n- chi ef evi dence
. W e al s o r ecogni zed thatext r a- t extual 14 fac t or s s uppor t ed l i m i t i ng A r t i cl e 37. 07, § 3( g) ’ s not i ce req u ir ement t o cas e- i n- chi ef evi dence
. D r aw i ng on t he deba t e on t he H ous e fl oor , w e co n clud ed t hatt he l egi s l at i ve h ist o ryo f A rt icl e 3 7
. 0 7 , § 3 (g) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p r i m a r y p u rp o s e o f t h e s t a tu t o r y a m e n d m e n t w a s t o c l a r i f y, aft er t hi s C our t ’ s deci s i on t o t he contr ar yi n G ru n sfe ld [ v . S ta te , 843 S. W
. 2d 521 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 2 )] , t hatevi dence of unadj udi cat ed extr aneous offe ns es and pr i or bad act s i s admi s s i bl e at puni s hm ent . T he not i ce pr ovi s i on w as desi gn ed to r ei nfo rce exi st i ng l aw r e ga r di ng no t i ce of extr aneo us off

enses, not t o cr eat e a ne w and di ffe r ent r equi r ement . . . . A t t he t i m e t he st atut e w as amended, R ul e 404( b) des cr i bed t he exi s t i ng l aw r egar di ng not ice of extr aneo us off

enses. 15 T hus , acc or di ng t o Jau bert , no t i ce under A rt i cl e 37
. 07 , § 3(g) , for pu nis hm ent pu rposes m ust be gi ven t o t he s ame ext entand i n t he s ame m anner as i t i s r equi r ed underR ul e 404( b) dur i ng t he gui l t s t age. A ppel l antm ent i ons our deci s i on i n Jau bert , but di s count s i t s r easo n ing as bei ng ap p li ca b le on ly to r eb u tt al p u n ishm en t ev iden ce . Instea d , h e re li es u p o n the B ea u m o n t C o u rt of A ppeal s ’ s opi ni on i n W a ltm o n v . S ta te , w hi ch w as del i ver ed j us t one w eek a ft erw e had 16 deci ded Jau bert
. W

al tm on , how ever , r el i ed on l anguage fr om t he cour t of appe al s ’ s opi ni on i n J a u b e rt– a d e c i s i o n t h a t we r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e i t i n c o r r e c t l yc o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e “ i n t h e s a meWorthy Pag e 8

W altmon , 7 6 S
. W
. 3 d

at1 5 5 (qu o t i n g J

au be rt v . S

tate , 65 S.W .3d 73 (Tex. App.—Waco 17 2000)). We re verse d J

au be rt on April 10, 2002. W

altmon was de cided on April 17, 2002. Appellant’s B rief at 11 (citing42 G EORGE E. D I X & R OB E R T O. D AW S ON , T EX AS 18 P RACT I CE : C RI M I N A L P R AC TI C E AND P ROCE D U RE § 22.251 (2d ed. Supp. 2009))
. F ED . R. E V ID . 404(b), Note s of Advisory Commi ttee on 1991 ame ndments (“The 19 ame ndme nt t o Ru le 40 4(b) a dd s a pr e tria l no tic e re qu ir e me nt i n c ri min a l c a se s a nd is i nte nd e d to reduc e surprise and promote e arly resolution on the issue of a dmissibi lity .”). m an n er” lang u ag e in 3 7
. 0 7 , § 3 (g), “‘relat es o n ly to the p roc ed u re g o v ern ing a d ef en d an t’ s
re q u e st a n d th e S tate ’s r e sp o n s e to th a t re q u e st, a n d n o t to th e sc o p e o f th e in f o rm a tio n to
w hi ch t he s ect i on appl i es . ’ ” A ppel l antnot es t hatPr ofes s or s D i x and D aw s on have 17
re c o g n ize d th a t W

al tm on ’ s h o l di ng–t hatt her e i s no s ame- t r ans act i on cont extual evi dence
exce pt i on t o A r t i cl e 37. 0 7 , § 3 (g) –i s “s om ew hatques t i onabl e” i n l i ght of Jau bert
. 18 N onet hel es s , appel l antur ges us t o i gnor e Jau bert ’ s r e a so n in g a n d a d o p t W a ltm o n ’s
. He
ar gues t hat t he pl ai n l anguage of 37. 07, § 3( g) , i s cont r ar y t o t he cour t of appe al s ’ s pos i t i on i n t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e Ru l e 4 0 4 ( b ) e x p l i c i t l y e x c l u d e s e v i d e n c e o f ma t t e r s “ a r i s i n g i n t h e s a me t r ans act i on” fr om t he not i ce r equi r ement , but 37. 07, § 3( g) , does not expl i ci t l y do s o. T hat is a d ist inction w ith o u t a diff ere n ce u n d er Jau bert ’s r e a so n in g : P re trial n o tice u n d e r A rticle 37. 07, § 3( g) i s r equi r ed w hen and i n t he same m anner as underR ul e 404( b)
. T he t w o not i ce
r ul es s er ve t he s ame pur pos e. T heyguar d agai ns t “s urpr i s e and pr om ot e ea r l yr es ol ut i on on t he i s s ue of a dm i s s i bi l i t y ” of unc har ged mi s conduct , conductt hat t he def endantw oul d not ot her w i s e know m i ght be off er ed att r i al , ei t herdur i ng t he gui l t or puni s hm entphas e. 19 F u rth e rm o re , “s a m e -tra n sa c tio n c o n tex tu a l ev id e n c e ” is i n trin sic to th e o f f e n se ; itisWorthy Pag e 9

Se eAlbre c ht v . S

tate , 486 S.W .2d 97, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (noting that 20 background evide nce is a dmitted to “show the context in which the criminal ac t occur red . . . under the rea soning that events do not occ ur in a va cuum and that the jur y has a right to hea

r what occ urre d immediately prior to and subseque nt to the commission of that act so that they may rea listi cally

evaluate the evide nce.” ). Se eUn ite d S

tates v . S um lin , 4 89 F . 3 d 6 83 , 6 89 (5 th C ir . 2 00 7) (“ Rul e 40 4(b) on ly 21 applies to limitthe admissibility of evide nce of

extrinsi c ac ts. Intrinsic evidenc e, on the other hand, is g ener ally

admissible so that the jury may evaluate all the circumstance s under whic h the defe ndant ac ted.”) (interna l cites and quotation marks omitted); United States v. Gobbi , 471 F. 3d 30 2, 31 1 ( 1s t Cir . 2 00 6) (“ Th e pr oh ibi tio n a g a ins t ‘ oth e r a c ts’ e vid e nc e ty pic a lly re fe rs to evidenc e that is extrinsi c to the crime charg ed and introduc ed for the purpose of

showing propensity . . . Her e, howe ver, w e neve r re ach thequestion of prope nsity ; the drug -purc hasing e vid e nc e in t

his c a se is i ntrins ic to t

hec on sp ir a c y

de sc ribe d in

c ount 1 of

theindic tme nt. Th at is to say , the evidenc e comprises part a nd parc el of the c harg ed off ense. Thus, theevidenc e is not ‘o the r a c ts’ e vid e nc e at a ll a nd , a c c ordin g ly , Ru le 40 4(b) is n ot i mpl ic ate d. ” ); United States v. Beckman , 298 F.3d 788, 794 ( 9th Cir. 2002) (testimony about def

endant’ s prior drugrun wa s nece ssary to provide “c ohere nt and compre hensible story” about the c rimes for which def endant wa s c ha rg e d; e vid e nc e wa s “ ine xtri c a bly int e rt wi ne d”wi th c ha

rg e d o ff e ns e and no t su bje c t to e xclu sio n o n b a sis of

Rul e 40 4(b) ); United States v. Gorman , 312 F.3d 1159, 1162- 63 (10th Cir. 2002) (testimony

relating to marijuana wa s intertwined with discover y of fire arm a

nd was not Rule 404(b) e videncesubject to notice). not “an e xt r aneous cr i m e orbad ac t ” t o w hi ch A r t i cl e 37. 07, § 3( g) , expl i ci t l yr efe r s . U nder t he comm on l aw , t hi s cont extual evi dence w as t r eat ed as a di s t i nct cl as s –“r es ge st ae”
ev iden ce
– u n d er the rea so n ing that the crim inal ac t d o es n o t occ u r i n a v ac u u m , an d the ju ry has a r i ght t o heart he cont extual evi dence
. L i kel y as a r es ul t , i t w as expl i ci t l ydefi ned out 20
o f “ o t h e r c r i me s , wr o n g s o r a c t s ” i n T e x a s Ru l e o f E v i d e n c e 4 0 4 ( b ) , mu c h a s a p a r t y ’ s o wn
s t at ement i s defi ned out of t he hear s ay r ul e i n R ul e 801(e ) ( 2)
. I t i s not expl i ci t l ydefi ned out of “ot hercr i m es , w r ongs or act s ” i n i t s fede r al count erpar t , but t he ca s es i nt erpr etFeder al R ul e 404(b) t o excl ude not i ce of evi dence t hat i s “i next r i cabl yi nt er t w i ned w i t h” or“par t and par cel of” or“nec es s ar yt o compl et e the st or yof” t he al l eged of fens e. T hi s i s cons i s t ent

21Worthy Pag e 10

F ED . R. E V ID . 404, Notes of Advisory Commi ttee on 1991 ame ndments. 22 J au be rt , 74 S.W .3d at 8 (Cochr an, J., concurring ). 23 For example, one colloquy

conce rningthe evidenc e of Seller s’s sex-offende r status 24 we nt a s f oll ow s: Court: I sn’t that something that you would have ne eded to put him on notice that you

wa nte d to g o into, be c a

us e isn ’t that a ba d a c t? Pr os e c uto r: It’ s n ot a

ba d a c t. Court : Why

isn ’t it a ba d a c t? Pr os e c uto r: It’ s n ot a

c ri min a l a c t. Court: Ididn’t say it was a c riminal act. That’s the whole r eason you want it befor e the jur y is i t’ s a ba d a c t, i sn ’t

it? Prosecutor: Iwant it befor e the jury as we ll because , surely , in provingour ca se, putting on evidenc e, he is having se x with a g irl at another location, how is that not contextual to the offense ? Th e tria l ju dg e e xpla ine d h is f ina l r uli nga s f oll ow s: 25 All right. Earlier

when the State attempted to ge t this i n, it was under thetheory w i t h t he not es of t he fe der al advi s or ycomm i t t ee on the 1991 am endment s t hatadded t he not i ce r equi r ement , w hi ch made cl eart hatt he “a m endment does not ext end t o evi dence of
a c ts w h ic h a re ‘i n tr in s ic ’ t o th e c h a rg e d o f f e n s e . . .” 22 T h a t sa id , p ru d e n t p r o s e c u to r s p ro v id e p re trial n o tice o f a ll ev id e n c e th a t co u ld p o ss ib lyb e c o n sid e re d e x tra n e o u s to th e c h a rg e d o f f e n se so th a t ju d g e s n e e d n o t “e n g a g e in a hai r - s pl i t t i ng debat e” a bout w het hers om e s peci fi c i t em i s evi dence of an e xt r aneous off ense or i s sam e-t ra n sacti on con t extual evidence. T he ev i den ce i n thi s case l ed to j ust 23
su c h a h a ir-sp lit tin g d e b a te. T h e r e w e r e th re e b e n c h c o n f e re n c e s a b o u t th e a d m iss ib ili ty 24 of t he evi dence of Sel l er s bei ng a r egi s t er ed s ex offe nder
. I ni t i al l y , t he tr i al j udge rul ed t he evi dence i nadmi s s i bl e under R ul e 403, but ul t i m at el y he hel d t hat i t w as admi s s i bl e bad- act evi dence and t hatt he St at e di d compl yw i t h not i ce. 25Worthy Pag e 11

of, as I rec all, the same tra

nsaction/contextual evidence . And since this was the punishment case only

with–as a re sult of the Def endant’ s plea of guilty , the Court’s view wa s that the prejudicia l value wa s greater than theprobative va lue as addre ssed at that point. And, there fore , Iwouldn’t let it in. And I don’t believe it really

was the same transa ction/contextual evidence beca use the e videncedoes makesense without therebeinga re fer enceto the sex offe nder. Howeve r, now thing s have e volved, it’s a little differ ent. The noticeissue was ra ised. That wa s also a fa ctor be fore . That wa s not shown to be complied with. No w I

do fi nd that th e State did

c omp ly , a lbe it n ot a s d ir e c t a s I wo uld lik e . It w a s–I ’m

g oin gto o ve rr

ule d th e no tic e ob

je c tio n o f t

his
. Ido believe this is a bad a ct alleg ation. And, there fore , Ido think under our l aw i t is so me thi ngthat c an c omein a nd bec on sid e re d, and

I ’m g oin gto allow it to give whateve r we ight the jur y deter mines it is entit led to, that is the act of taking , alleg edly , that child thereat a plac e whe re the re is a r eg istered se x offe nder. So, it’s not the fa ct that he is a se x offe nder a nd solely runningthat in as pa rt and pa rc e l of thema in o ff

e ns e , b ut a

ba d a c t attribu

te d to theDe fe nd ant, if they believe it happe ned. So, at this j uncture , I ’m g oing to a llow it to come in. See Mc Do na ld v . S

tate , 179 S.W .3d 571, 577-78 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). 26Id. at 578 (“ The e videnceconce rningthe complainant make s perf ect se nse without 27 bring ingin e vid e nc e of

thea pp e lla nt’ s c on du c t w iththec ou sin and is c le arl y div isiblein t

hat it involves a diffe rent victim, at a diff ere nt time, after thecharg ed conduc t was complete d. When the fa cts of the primary

offe nse ca

n be under stood on their own, notice is nee ded for evidenc e of un c ha rg e d mi sc on du c t. I

n th is c a se , th e prima

ry of fe ns e wa s und e rs tand a

bleon its own f a c ts. We theref ore c onclude that the trial court a bused its discretion in admitting the unc harg ed of fe ns e wi tho ut n oti c e be c a us e thea pp e lla nt w a s e nti tle d to no tic e up on re qu e st und e r R

ule 404(b).” ). A s not ed above, t he cour t of appeal s hel d j us t t he opposi t e: T he evi dence conce r ni ng appel l ant ’ s s t ep- br ot herw as s ame- t r ans act i on cont extual evi dence
. T her e i s no br i ght l i ne h e re . O n th e o n e h a n d , as th e tr ia l co u rt p o in ted o u t, th e e v id e n c e w a s n o t ab so lu tely
nece s s ar yt o t he j ur y ’ s under s t andi ng of t he cha r ged off ens e. O n t he ot her , i t i s not 26 d iv isi ble i n t he w ay t hat evidence i nv olvi ng a differ ent vict i m w ou l d have been ; it i s 27Worthy Pag e 12

Se e, e .g., Cam ac ho v . S

tate , 8 64 S.W. 2d

52 4, 53 2 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 93 ) ( in c a pit a l- 28 murder c ase, e videnceof kidnappingand double murde r of de cea sed homeowne r’s wifeand son was “ ‘[s] ame tra

nsaction conte x tual evidenc e’ . . . [that] i mparts to the trier of fac t information e sse nti a l to un de rs tand ingthec onte xt an d c ir c ums tanc e s o f e ve nts wh ic h, a lth ou gh le g a lly separ ate of

fense s, areblended or

interwove n. As such it is admissibl e, not for thepurpose of showingchar acte r conf

ormity , but to ill uminate the natur e of thecrime a lleg ed.”) (citation omi tte d) ; Sto k

e r v . S tate , 788 S.W .2d 1, 12-13 (Te x . Crim. App. 1989) (testimony that defe ndant was in debt a

nd had “f ronted too many

drug s” admissible in capital murde r trial as showing de fe nd ant’ s st ate of

min d a nd c ir c ums tanc e s at ti me of

ro bb e ry-m

urde r) ; see also United States v

. Cam pb e ll , 4 9 F .3 d 1 07 9, 10 83 -8 4 ( 5th Cir . 1 99 5) (i n M ann

Ac t pros e c uti on

fo r t ra ve lin gwi th two wo m enfo r p urp o s es o f p ro s t i tut i o n , p ro p er t o adm i tev i d en ce th atth e thre e u s eddru gs duringthe trip and that de fenda nt beat the two wome n as this “ca rrot” a nd “stick” be havior wa s “re levant intrinsic evidenc e of howthe ac tual violation occurr ed.”)
. “i n t r i n s i c ”

– a c i r c u ms t a n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c h a r g e d c r i mi n a l a c t . I t i s s o mew hat l i ke 28
o f f e rin g e v id e n c e th a t th e m u rd e re r k ill e d h is v ic ti m in a b o rd e llo ; itis n o t es se n tial in pr ovi ng the o ffe ns e of murde r t o s how t hati t occurr ed i n a bor del l o, but i t cer t ai nl yi s an i nt r i ns i c ci r cumst ance s ur r oundi ng t hatpar t i cul arm ur derand i t s how s t he cont extof t he
c ri m e . B eca us e w e agr ee t hatt he cour t of appea l s cor r ect l y concl uded t hatpr et r i al not i ce of
sam e-trans ac ti o n co n textu al ev iden ce is no t r eq u ir ed u n d er A rt icl e 3 7
. 0 7 , § 3 (g), w e a ff ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th a t co u rt.

D el i ver ed: J une 9, 2010 P ub l i sh