Opinion ID: 513999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Extraneous Offense Evidence.

Text: 27 Along with the shotgun, officers found six Darvon capsules in Dancy's trunk; Dancy consequently was charged under Texas law with possession of a controlled substance. Before trial he filed a motion in limine asking that extraneous offense evidence not be elicited without a prior non-jury hearing to determine its relevancy. The court granted the motion. At trial, however, the Government, without the court's approval and over Dancy's objection, elicited testimony that a controlled substance was found in the trunk. The court denied Dancy's motion for a mistrial and refused his request for a curative instruction. On appeal Dancy argues that the court should have sustained his objection to the controlled substance testimony or granted a mistrial. 28 The Government makes a strained argument that the controlled substance found in the trunk was inextricably intertwined with Dancy's shotgun and was therefore admissible. The trial court, having granted Dancy's motion in limine, would seem to disagree. We need not pass on the issue of admissibility, however, because the error, if any, in admitting two perfunctory testimonial references to a controlled substance was harmless. The jury members were not asked to focus on this evidence in closing argument, and the court instructed them to consider only the specific offense alleged in the indictment. 29 The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.