holding: (1) admission of unadjudicated extraneous offenses is contingent upon clear proof the offense was committed and the defendant perpetrated the offense and (2) appellate review of the trial court’s determinations is solely to ascertain whether it was in that zone of reasonable disagreement
How later courts described this case
- holding: (1) admission of unadjudicated extraneous offenses is contingent upon clear proof the offense was committed and the defendant perpetrated the offense and (2) appellate review of the trial court’s determinations is solely to ascertain whether it was in that zone of reasonable disagreement
- holding the trial court did not err in admitting gruesome crime scene photos, that depicted nothing outside of what was included in the testimony of the witnesses, because the photos were not unduly prejudicial to the defendant
- holding that eight gruesome pictures depicting the various injuries to the victim’s body were not more prejudicial than probative, because they showed nothing more than the reality of the brutal crime committed
- explaining as well that unless and until multiple errors are found to have been committed, there can be no cumulative-error effect because non-errors cannot in their cumulative effect create harmful error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOMACK, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
I join the judgment of the Court and, except as to Point of Error Three, its opinion. The Court should review the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict on the probability that the appellant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.