IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00371-CR

JEREMY WAYNE STRICKLAND,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-820-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeremy Wayne Strickland appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a 

child. After finding him guilty, the jury assessed punishment at sixty years of 

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. In his 

sole issue, Strickland contends the trial court erred in allowing admission of extraneous 

offense evidence. We affirm.
Strickland v. State Page 2

Extraneous Offense Evidence

In his sole issue on appeal, Strickland asserts the trial court abused its discretion 

by permitting the State to elicit testimony from him about his extraneous drug usage. 

Specifically, on cross-examination, Strickland testified that he tested positive for 

methamphetamines in 2013, 2018, and in 2023. He argues that he did not open the door 

for this evidence, and it was not admissible under any legally correct theory.

STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW

We review the trial court's decision to admit contested testimony under an abuse 

of discretion standard. Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We 

will uphold the trial court's decision if it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. 

Id. The trial court's evidentiary ruling must be upheld if it is reasonably supported by 

the record and is correct under any applicable theory of law. Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 

895, 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).

Because an accused must be tried only for the offense for which he is charged and 

may not be tried for a collateral crime or for being a criminal generally, extraneous offense 

evidence is usually not admissible "to prove a person's character in order to show that on 

a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." TEX. R. EVID.

404(b)(1); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

When a defendant offers evidence of his good character, the prosecutor can admit 

evidence of the defendant’s character to rebut the implication left by defendant’s 
Strickland v. State Page 3

character evidence. TEX. R. EVID. 404(a)(2)(A); Harrison v. State, 241 S.W.3d 23, 27 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007). Once a defendant opens the door to evidence pertinent to a character 

trait, trial courts may permit the State to introduce evidence to impeach the defendant’s 

evidence concerning the trait at issue. Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 886 n.16 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2002).

Discussion

K.S.’s older brother, Jeremy, testified on behalf of Strickland. He testified that he 

does not believe his father sexually assaulted K.S. The prosecutor asked him: “So that’s 

why you don’t believe her, because she’s lied to you?” Jeremy responded by 

volunteering: “My father is not a bad person. I don’t believe it.” Evidence to show 

Strickland’s character became relevant to impeach the impression left by Jeremy that 

Strickland was not a “bad person.” See Harrison, 241 S.W.3d at 27. Therefore, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted the State to cross-examine Strickland 

about his past drug use. Id. We overrule Strickland’s sole issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

STEVE SMITH

Justice
Strickland v. State Page 4

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed August 22, 2024

Do not publish

[CRPM]