Court Opinion

ID: 9776075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:18:14.019445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:33.989567
License: Public Domain

*428BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
The majority correctly concludes the instant case is governed by Espinosa v. State, 853 S.W.2d 36 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). In Espinosa, I wrote a separate concurring opinion stating:
To make an adequate request under [Tex.R.Crim. Evid.] 404(b) the better practice is for the defendant to file a document entitled ‘Rule 404(b) Request for Notice of Intent to Offer Extraneous Conduct’ and to timely serve the State with a copy of the request. In this situation, the defendant is not required to obtain a ruling from the trial judge....
Espinosa, 853 S.W.2d at 39. Such a document need only be filed because a Rule 404(b) request “need not be acted on by the trial court before the State is obligated to comply.” Id., 853 S.W.2d at 38.
Nevertheless, we continue to see cases where defense counsel has made the request in the form of a motion which requires some action by the trial judge. Such a motion obviates the need for the State to disclose 404(b) material until some judicial action is taken. Consequently, when defense counsel resorts to a motion to invoke Rule 404(b), no complaint will be heard when counsel failed to obtain the judicial action he imposed upon himself. Espinosa 853 S.W.2d at 39.
With these comments, I join the majority opinion.