Opinion ID: 566790
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Extrinsic Offense Evidence

Text: 47 Tejada says that the district court erred in not finding that his trial was made fundamentally unfair by the state trial court's admission of extrinsic offense that Tejada had once put a pillowcase over Megginnson's head, tied her up and threatened to kill her. Ortiz and Megginnson testified about the event and indicated that Tejada did it because his gun was missing and he thought Megginnson might have taken it. 16 Tejada argues that the evidence was improperly admitted Williams' Rule evidence 17 because it only served the purpose of convincing the jury that he had a propensity to commit violent crimes. We express no opinion on the propriety of admitting this evidence because, regardless of that question, the admission of this evidence did not deprive Tejada of a fundamentally fair trial. The evidence was not material to his conviction in the sense of a crucial, critical, highly selective factor, Shaw, 695 F.2d at 530, because the state presented far more powerful evidence of Tejada's guilt through, among other things, the testimony of Megginnson and Alexander's wife.