Court Opinion

ID: 9756518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:33:27.011876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:24.492006
License: Public Domain

KELLER, P.J.,
concurring in which JOHNSON and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.
The touchstone for the admissibility of extraneous “bad act” evidence is Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b). Pre-rules cases that conflict with the rule have been superseded.1 The rule simply provides that extraneous bad acts are not admissible to prove character conformity but may be *510admissible for other purposes.2 Post-rules cases such as Tate v. State will often expound a particular nonconformity purpose that allows admission of bad-acts evidence.3 But the fact that evidence is admissible because of a particular set of circumstances does not mean that the evidence is automatically inadmissible if that particular set of circumstances is not present.
Before the court of appeals, appellant’s only proffered bases for admitting the evidence were his knowledge of the victim’s prior conduct and the generic tendency of this conduct to show that the victim was the first aggressor. Concluding that no evidence in the record showed that appellant was aware of the prior conduct at issue, the court of appeals rejected the first basis, and that holding is not before us.
In support of the second basis, appellant advanced two lines of authority: (1) Tate and (2) a line of cases beginning with Dempsey v. State.4 Although the Dempsey line of cases held that evidence of prior bad acts was admissible to show that the alleged victim was the first aggressor based solely upon a character conformity inference, those holdings have been superseded by Rule 404(b).5
As for appellant’s argument under Tate, the Court of Appeals explained that Tate involved “a threat made by the victim toward the defendant,” which was relevant to show “the victim’s state of mind and possibly his motive for the confrontation with the defendant.”6 By contrast, the court of appeals explained, the prior conduct in the present case had nothing to do with appellant:
In the instant case, the incident about which appellant wished to introduce testimony did not implicate appellant in any way. Delaney did not make any threat toward appellant, and Delaney did not indicate that he had any animosity toward appellant. The incident is not probative of Delaney’s motivation or state of mind related to the confrontation with appellant. Therefore, while appellant could introduce character evidence to suggest that [Delaney] was the aggressor, he could not introduce evidence of these specific acts and events because such evidence was not admissible for other purposes.7
I do not read the court of appeals’s opinion to hold that Tate limited the admissibility of evidence to those instances in which the victim’s prior bad acts implicated the defendant. Rather, I read the court of appeals as simply holding that Tate did not supply a basis for admitting appellant’s evidence because his evidence was not like the evidence in that case, and no other basis for admitting the evidence was apparent.
Appellant failed to explain to the court of appeals, or to this Court, what admissible purpose his proffered evidence was relevant to, other than to cite to “first aggressor,” and no other purpose is appar*511ent. The only post-rules authority cited by appellant in the court below was Tate, and the court of appeals did a good job explaining why Tate was distinguishable from appellant’s case.
I concur in the Court’s judgment.

. Tate v. State, 981 S.W.2d 189, 192 (Tex. Crim.App.1998).

. Rule 404(b) provides in relevant part:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident....

. See Tate, supra.

. 159 Tex.Crim. 602, 266 S.W.2d 875 (1954).

. Tate, 981 S.W.2d at 192.

. Hayes v. State, 124 S.W.3d 781, 786 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003).

. Id.