recognizing background evidence was admitted “[t]o show the context in which the criminal act occurred … under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum and that the jury has a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of the act so that they may realistically evaluate the evidence.”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing background evidence was admitted “[t]o show the context in which the criminal act occurred … under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum and that the jury has a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of the act so that they may realistically evaluate the evidence.”
- noting that this background evidence is admitted to "show the context in which the criminal act occurred ... under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum and that the jury has a right to hear what occurred immediately pri- or to and subsequent to the commission of that act so that they may realistically evaluate the evidence”
- noting that background evidence is admitted to "show the context in which the criminal act occurred . . . under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum and that the jury has a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of that act so that they may realistically evaluate the evidence."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
I agree with the affirmance of this conviction on the basis of the terse statement of the law regarding the admission of extraneous offenses in forgery and passing cases found in Harris v. State, 169 Tex. Cr.R. 143, 333 S.W.2d 142 , cited in the majority opinion.