# Tate v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · December 9, 1998 · 981 S.W.2d 189

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9678771

## Case

- **Full name:** Christopher Michael TATE, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** December 9, 1998
- **Citations:** 981 S.W.2d 189; 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 168; 1998 WL 846882
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meyers
- **Judges:** Mansfield, Baird, Overstreet, Price, Holland, Womack, Meyers, Keller, McCormick
- **Cited by:** 114 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/9678771

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that evidence of a threat made by a decedent a month or two before his death was admissible under rule 404(b), when offered by the defendant who was charged with murder and asserted self-defense, because the threat was probative of the decedent’s state of mind to possi…
- holding that evidence of threat made by decedent one or two months before his death was admissible when offered by defendant who was charged with murder and asserted self-defense, because threat was probative of decedent’s state of mind to possibly harm defendant on date of of…
- holding that evidence of a threat made by a decedent a month or two before his death was admissible under rule 404(b
- concluding that a jury could not “properly convict or acquit absent the opportunity to hear proffered testimony bearing upon a theory of defense and weigh its credibility along with other evidence in the case.”
- holding in self-defense case that victim’s prior threat on life of defendant, even though made two months prior to victim's death, is probative of defendant's reasonable apprehension and victim's aggression

## Opinion text

MEYERS, Judge,
concurring.
Evidence of a victim’s threats against the defendant, while not admissible to prove the character of the victim to show that he acted in conformity therewith,
*194 may, however, be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident....
Tex.R.CRIM. Evid. 404(b). Thus, as appellant argues, evidence of the victim’s threats may be admissible if they have relevance apart from a tendency to prove character conformity. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider the admissibility of the questioned evidence under this portion of Rule 404(b). To this extent I agree with the majority.
The majority goes on to examine whether the evidence has relevance beyond character conformity. Majority op. at 198. The Court of Appeals ought to have the opportunity to address this question in the first instance. 1
I would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to that Court to consider whether there is an “other purpose” for which the evidence has relevance, apart from character conformity. 2
. The Court of Appeals recognized the victim’s character was relevant "to support the inference that he acted in conformity with his character; that is, was the aggressor as the defendant claims." 956 S.W.2d at 847. But, that court concluded, under Rule 404(b), despite its relevance in showing character conformity, such evidence was inadmissible for that purpose, op. at 848. They did not further question any other relevance of or purpose for such evidence. It is possible that court does not believe such evidence has other relevance.
. The majority decides the question of "other purposes” in the first instance, and vacates and remands to the Court of Appeals with instructions to conduct a harm analysis. I concur in the majority’s action to vacate and remand, but dissent to the content of the majority’s instructions to the Court of Appeals.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9678771. Public record. Not legal advice.