# Albrecht v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · September 25, 1972 · 486 S.W.2d 97

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646561

## Case

- **Full name:** Ervin Herman ALBRECHT, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** September 25, 1972
- **Citations:** 486 S.W.2d 97
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Morrison
- **Judges:** Odom, Morrison
- **Cited by:** 578 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646561

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 ac…
- 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 …
- 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 prior to and subsequent to the commission of …
- 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 …
- 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 ac…

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646561. Public record. Not legal advice.