Court Opinion

ID: 9665557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:51:24.692516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:16.712937
License: Public Domain

ANDELL, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority in the reasoning and disposition of cause number 562,943. However, I disagree with the reasoning and disposition of cause number 598,811, and would reverse and remand that cause accordingly.
The majority holds that by giving appellant access to its files via an open file policy, the State has complied with the notice requirement of Tex.R.CRIM.Evid. 404(b). I disagree.
In Carrao v. State, 800 S.W.2d 218, 219 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1097, 111 S.Ct. 988, 112 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1991), the court initially granted petition for discretionary review in order to discuss the requirements for sufficient notice under rule 404, but then dismissed the petition as improvidently granted. Judge Campbell dissented to the dismissal of the petition, and indicated he did not believe that the State’s open file policy constituted sufficient notice under rule 404(b). He argued that the notice requirement of the rule speaks to the intent of the State, and not the existence of the evidence. Id. at 219. I agree. The clear language of rule 404(b) requires notice of the State’s “intent to introduce [evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts] in the State’s case in chief_” Tex.R.CRIM.Evid. 404(b) (emphasis added). While the State’s open file policy may provide a defendant notice of the State’s possession of evidence of other crimes, it does not inform the defendant that the State intends to introduce that evidence at trial. Therefore, I would hold that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence of other crimes without first providing appellant notice of its intent to do so.