holding that evidence of gang affiliation had been introduced for the sole purpose of showing the defendant’s bad character
How later courts described this case
- holding that evidence of gang affiliation had been introduced for the sole purpose of showing the defendant’s bad character
- finding that A[h]ad the State put on its case without . . . appellant=s connection with gangs, the jury surely would have had no problems following and understanding the sequence of events of the night of the murder@
- finding that “[h]ad the State put on its case without ... appellant’s connection with gangs, the jury surely would have had no problems following and understanding the sequence of events of the night of the murder”
- holding that appellant is entitled to prosecutor's voir dire notes if they were actually used by prosecutor to refresh his memory
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Perry Wayne Russell v. State (2009)
Russell argues that Pondexter is distinguishable and points out that the arresting
The opinion
BAIRD, J.,
concurs: I concur in the resolution of point of error eleven, believing the error was cured when the same evidence was admitted through other sources. I disagree with the treatment of points of error nineteen, twenty and twenty-one for the reasons stated in Morris v. State, 940 S.W.2d 610, 616 (Baird, J., dissenting). I join the remainder of the majority opinion.