Court Opinion

ID: 9612146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:05:33.184265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:19.753180
License: Public Domain

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Because I agree with the result that the majority reached but disagree with their analysis, I respectfully write separately.
The majority’s analysis turns on their position that, because the State offered the testimony for the purpose of establishing how Appellant became a suspect and not for the truth of the matter asserted, the testimony was admitted for a limited purpose. The majority takes this position despite the fact that no limiting instruction was given. The law is well settled that evidence admitted without any limiting instruction is admitted for all purposes.1 No matter how limited the State’s offer, the testimony is in the record for all purposes, including the truth of the matter asserted.2
Because the majority confuses the limited offer of the evidence with a limited admission of evidence, I respectfully dissent. Because Appellant faded to request the limiting instruction, I concur in the result the majority reaches in their thoughtful opinion.

. See Tex.R. Evid. 105(a); Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (“As we previously stated, however, K.H.’s testimony was admitted for all purposes because appellant failed to request a limiting instruction when the evidence was admitted.”); Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex.Crim. App.1994) ("Appellant further ignores that once evidence is received without a proper limiting instruction, it becomes part of the general evidence in the case and may be used as proof to the full extent of its rational persuasive power.”), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021, 115 S.Ct. 1368, 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995).

. See Ex parte Varelas, 45 S.W.3d 627, 635 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) ("Additionally, without the limiting instructions, it is probable that the jury considered the extraneous acts as direct evidence of applicant’s guilt, i.e., propensity evidence, rather than for the purposes in which they were offered, which was limited to the applicant's state of mind, intent, relationship, motive and to rebut defensive issues.”); McCullough v. State, 116 S.W.3d 86, 94 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref d) ("In certain instances, evidence may be offered for a limited purpose. However, for that limitation to be effective the admission of the evidence must be accompanied by a limiting instruction.”).