countervailing factors in Texas

2018De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim.

2013De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009).

2016See Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807, 810 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (in reviewing a trial court’s ruling under Rule of Evidence 403, the ruling “must be upheld if it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement”); Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 791 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (explaining that Rule 403 “gives the trial court considerable discretion to exclude evidence when it appears to that individual judge, in the context of that particular trial, to be insufficiently probative when measured against the countervailing factors specified in the rule”; Rule 403 “thus allows different trial judges to rea

2016Evid. 403. “[A] trial court may exclude any relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by any or all of the countervailing factors specified in Rule 403.” Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 791 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (citing Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Tex.Crim.App.2006)).

2018Consequently, we find that “[t]he trial court, after balancing the various Rule 403 factors, could have reasonably concluded that the probative value of appellant’s [HGN] test results was not substantially outweighed by the countervailing factors specified in the rule.” Id. at 642 .

2016Evid. 403. “[A] trial court may exclude any relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by any or all of the countervailing factors specified in Rule 403.” Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 791 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (citing Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Tex.Crim.App.2006)).

2016See 3 Specifically, the instruction stated: You are instructed that if there is any testimony before you in this case regarding the defendant's having committed offenses other than the offense alleged against him in the indictment in this case, you cannot consider said testimony for any purpose unless you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed such other offenses, if any were committed, and even then you may only consider the same in determining the identity, motive, opportunity, intent, or plan, of the defendant, in connection with the offense, if any, alleged

2010See id. at 884-85 (upholding court of appeal’s conclusion that evidence of extraneous bad acts was inadmissible); see also Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389, 397 (holding that trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the probative value outweighed prejudice and admitting evidence that “appellant frequently walked around naked, with an erection, in the presence of his children” in prosecution of the appellant for indecency with a child).

2021See Hammer, 296 S.W.3d at 568 ; Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Hammer, 296 S.W.3d at 568 ; Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex. Crim.

2016See Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807, 810 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (in reviewing a trial court’s ruling under Rule of Evidence 403, the ruling “must be upheld if it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement”); Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 791 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (explaining that Rule 403 “gives the trial court considerable discretion to exclude evidence when it appears to that individual judge, in the context of that particular trial, to be insufficiently probative when measured against the countervailing factors specified in the rule”; Rule 403 “thus allows different trial judges to rea

2015To be relevant, the photograph must “be a correct representation of the subject at a given time.” Delacerda v. State, 425 S.W.3d 367, 393 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd) (citing Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212, 222 (Tex.Crim.App.1988)). “[A] trial court may exclude any relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by any or all of the countervailing factors specified in Rule 403.” Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 791 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (citing Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Tex.Crim.App.2006)). k- Analysis Here, the photographs were tak

2015See Brown, 911 S. W.2d at 746 (evidence of affirmative links must be of such strength that the evidence would support no inference other than the guilt of the accused 10 The State argued in closing that there were bullets in the duffle bag.

2015To be relevant, the photograph must “be a correct representation of the subject at a given time.” Delacerda v. State, 425 S.W.3d 367, 393 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd) (citing Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212, 222 (Tex.Crim.App.1988)). “[A] trial court may exclude any relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by any or all of the countervailing factors specified in Rule 403.” Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 791 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (citing Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Tex.Crim.App.2006)). k- Analysis Here, the photographs were tak

2009Winegamer v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 791 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); see Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 378-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (op. on orig. submission); 810 S.W.2d at 391-92 (op. on reh’g); Johnson v. State, 263 S.W.3d 405, 426-427 (Tex.App.-Waco 2008, pet. ref'd).

2008Winegarner, 235 S.W.3d at 791 ; see Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 378-79 (op. on orig. submission); id. at 391-92 (op. on reh'g); e.g., Mumphrey v. State, 155 S.W.3d 651, 663 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, pet. ref'd). [A] trial court, when undertaking a Rule 403 analysis, must balance (1) the inherent probative force of the proffered item of evidence along with (2) the proponent's need for that evidence against (3) any tendency of the evidence to suggest decision on an improper basis, (4) any tendency of the evidence to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues, (5) any tendency of the evidenc

2008Winegarner , 235 S.W.Sd at 791; see Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 378-79 (op. on orig. submission); id. at 391-92 (op. on reh’g); e.g., Mumphrey v. State, 155 S.W.3d 651, 663 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, pet. ref'd). [A] trial court, when undertaking a Rule 403 analysis, must balance (1) the inherent probative force of the proffered item of evidence along with (2) the proponent’s need for that evidence against (3) any tendency of the evidence to suggest decision on an improper basis, (4) any tendency of the evidence to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues, (5) any tendency of the evidenc

1990“It would seem that Rule 403 more strongly favors admissibility than did many of the earlier formulations of the appropriate balancing test; with the opponent of *600 the evidence bearing the burden of showing that the probative value is ‘substantially outweighed’ by the countervailing factors.” Goode, Wellborn and Sharlot, Texas Practice, Vol. 33, Guide To The Texas Rules of Evidence: Civil and Criminal § 403.1, at 90 (1988); see also Crank v. State, 761 S.W.2d 328, 342, n. 5 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).