Court Opinion

ID: 9680658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:35:53.120208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.891342
License: Public Domain

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result but write separately because I would hold that the trial court did not err in admitting Desmaris’s testimony regarding S.E.’s statements during her interview that (1) “It makes me want to puke”; (2) “it makes me want to puke”; (3) “[Appellant] is sick, so sick I can’t stand it”; and (4) “He makes me look at dirty magazines.” If the remaining statements from the interview are admissible, and I agree that they are, then these statements are merely same transaction contextual evidence and therefore are admissible. These statements are integral to a full description of the offense.
In Mayes v. State, the court of criminal appeals explained same transaction contextual evidence:
Same transaction contextual evidence is deemed admissible as a so-called exception to the propensity rule where “several crimes are intermixed, or blended with one another, or connected so that they form an indivisible criminal transaction, and full proof by testimony, whether direct or circumstantial, of any one of them cannot be given without showing the others.” The reason for its admission “is simply because in narrating the one it is impracticable to avoid describing the other, and not because the other has any evidential purpose.” Necessity, then, seems to be one of the reasons behind admitting evidence of the accused’s acts, words and conduct at the time of the commission of the offense.5
For these reasons only, I write separately.

. Mayes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 79, 86 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (citations omitted).