Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955 (Tex. App. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955 (Tex. App. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
83 citation events (81 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Nathan Dewayne McDaniel v. State (texapp, 2019-07-11)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nathan Dewayne McDaniel v. State
Tex. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See id.; see also Sebalt v. State, 28 S.W.3d 819, 821 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2000, no pet.); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kevin Ramon Murphy v. State
Tex. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
App. 1997) (“[A] judge is presumed to engage in the required balancing test once Rule 403 is invoked and we refuse to hold that the silence of the record implies otherwise.”); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.––Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“Because appellant objected on specific grounds and the trial court overruled the objection, we assume that the trial court applied Rule 403 and determined that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leon Hill v. State
Tex. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“It is therefore the objecting party’s burden to show that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). 9 See also Dominguez v. State, 467 S.W.3d 521, 525 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, pet. ref’d), finding no ex post facto violation where Dominguez indicted before Article 38.37’s effective date and the statute was applied at his trial. 10 The Rule also allows for exclusion if the “probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . confusing …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard Darby v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“It is therefore the objecting party’s burden to demonstrate that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Id. (citing Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hung Phuoc Le v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
App. 1997) (“[A] judge is presumed to engage in the required balancing test once Rule 403 is invoked and we refuse to hold that the silence of the record implies otherwise.”); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“Because appellant objected on specific grounds and the trial court overruled the objection, we assume that the trial court applied Rule 403 and determined that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roderick Beham v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams, Eric Jarrod
Tex. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ann. art. 38.37; Sarabia v. State, 227 S.W.3d 320, 325 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref d) (pornographic photograph defendant showed victim was admissible because it was relevant to defendant's relationship with victim); McCulloch v. State, 39 S.W.3d 678, 681 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001, pet. refd) (evidence of prior sexual assaults committed by defendant against victim was relevant to victim's and defendant's state of mind, defendant's dominance over victim, and defendant's misuse of his position of family disciplinarian to commit abuse); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cameron, Vanessa
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
The opinion gives no reason for this dismissal of the dispositive issue in this appeal. ―[T]he burden of making a record to reveal or dispel error rests with the parties, not the court.‖4 The burden is always on the appealing party to make an adequate record for appeal.5 Case law imposes a ―burden on the appealing party to make a record demonstrating that error occurred in the trial court.‖6 ―This Court does not decide cases based on speculation about matters not shown in the record.‖ 7 The burden is also on the objecting party at trial to demonstrate that its objection is accurate…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brian Victorian v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Burke, 371 S.W.3d at 256 (holding that evidence of the appellant’s previous molestations of the complainant was probative of their relationship); Pool v. State, 981 S.W.2d 467, 469 (Tex. App.— Waco 1999, pet. ref’d) (holding that sexual assaults and subsequent pregnancy by 23 the appellant against the complainant after her seventeenth birthday were admissible under Article 38.37); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (evidence of extraneous acts committed by the appellant against the child, including numerous incidents of sexual, ver…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eric Jarrod Williams v. State
Tex. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Ann. art. 38.37; Sarabia v. State, 227 S.W.3d 320, 325 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d) (pornographic photograph defendant showed victim was admissible because it was relevant to defendant’s relationship with victim); McCulloch v. State, 39 S.W.3d 678, 681 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001, pet. ref’d) (evidence of prior sexual assaults committed by defendant against victim was relevant to victim’s and defendant’s state of mind, defendant’s dominance over victim, and defendant’s misuse of his position of family disciplinarian to commit abuse); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955,…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Damian Ricardo Flores v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ronnie Paul Kappel v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Wenger v. State, 292 S.W.3d 191, 204 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2009, no pet.); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Al D. Checo v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Wenger v. State, 292 S.W.3d 191, 204 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, no pet.); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Leonardo Oviedo v. State
Tex. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Sanders v. State , 255 S.W.3d 754, 760 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jose Marvin Martinez v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Therefore, the objecting party bears the burden “to demonstrate that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Id. (citing Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chang Hyeong Lee v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole v. State, 974 S.W.2d 893 , 897 (Tex. App.— Austin 1998, pet. ref’d).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chang Hyeong Lee v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole v. State , 974 S.W.2d 893 , 897 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. ref’d).
cited Cited as authority (rule) William Charles Phillips v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) William Charles Phillips v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) William Charles Phillips v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lamanuel James Fletcher v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ruben Wenger v. A/K/A Reuben v. Wenger v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole v. State, 974 S.W.2d 892, 897 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. ref’d).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wenger v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole v. State, 974 S.W.2d 892, 897 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, pet. ref'd).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ruben Wenger v. A/K/A Reuben v. Wenger v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole v. State, 974 S.W.2d 892, 897 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. ref’d).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phrory Moran Gamble v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole, 974 S.W.2d at 897 . 11 The relevant criteria in determining whether the prejudice of an extraneous offense clearly outweighs its probative value include (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 evidence to be given undue weight …
cited Cited as authority (rule) AJRO Real Estate Investments, LLC v. Town of Little Elm
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole , 974 S.W.2d at 897 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnny Oscar Villarreal v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole , 974 S.W.2d at 897 . 2.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles Richard Bernard, Jr. v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Ann. art. 38.37 (Vernon Supp. 2007); Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnny Joe Flores v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See also Smith v. State , 5 S.W.3d 673 , 678 n.10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (contrasting language of article 38.37 with that of article 38.36(a)); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (finding testimony concerning 520 extraneous acts against child were relevant to show the state of mind of appellant and child and the previous and subsequent relationship between appellant and child; evidence was relevant and did not violate rules 401 or 402).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnny Joe Flores v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See also Smith v. State, 5 S.W.3d 673 , 678 n.10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (contrasting language of article 38.37 with that of article 38.36(a)); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (finding testimony concerning 520 extraneous acts against child were relevant to show the state of mind of appellant and child and the previous and subsequent relationship between appellant and child; evidence was relevant and did not violate rules 401 or 402).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marcus Padilla v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). 18.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Isenhower v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 389 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh’g) (en banc); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) James Bernard Isenhower v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
App. 1991) (op. on reh = g) (en banc); Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Edward Sanders A/K/A Kenneth Edwards Sanders v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole, 974 S.W.2d at 897 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Edward Sanders A/K/A Kenneth Edwards Sanders v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole , 974 S.W.2d at 897 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sanders v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Poole, 974 S.W.2d at 897 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Wight v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Wight v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Wight v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Comeaux, Mark Anthony v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). [7] See Ex parte Little , 887 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Donald Ray Coil v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Juan Gomez Perez A/K/A Arturo Gomez Perez v. State
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Montgomery , 810 S.W.2d at 391 ; Conrad v. State , 10 S.W.3d 43, 45-46 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d) (concluding that videotape of extraneous acts was admissible pursuant to article 38.37); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (holding evidence of extraneous acts admissible pursuant to article 38.37 and probative value of evidence not outweighed by prejudicial effect).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Juan Gomez Perez A/K/A Arturo Gomez Perez v. State
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Montgomery , 810 S.W.2d at 391 ; Conrad v. State , 10 S.W.3d 43, 45-46 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d) (concluding that videotape of extraneous acts was admissible pursuant to article 38.37); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (holding evidence of extraneous acts admissible pursuant to article 38.37 and probative value of evidence not outweighed by prejudicial effect) .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Manuel Ruelas Sigala v. State
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See also Smith v. State , 5 S.W.3d 673 , 678 n.10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (contrasting language of article 38.37 with that of article 38.36(a)); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (finding testimony concerning 520 extraneous acts against child were relevant to show the state of mind of appellant and child and the previous and subsequent relationship between appellant and child; evidence was relevant and did not violate rules 401 or 402).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McKinley Roosevelt Lee v. State
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See also Smith v. State , 5 S.W.3d 673 , 678 n.10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (contrasting language of article 38.37 with that of article 38.36(a)); Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (finding testimony concerning 520 extraneous acts against child were relevant to show the state of mind of appellant and child and the previous and subsequent relationship between appellant and child; evidence was relevant and did not violate rules 401 or 402).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Timothy L. Phillips v. State
Tex. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brian A. Hough v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brian A. Hough v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Randy Neil Robinson v. State
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Hinojosa v. State , 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex App.—Houston [14 th Dist.] 1999, no pet. h.).
cited Cited "see" Leoncio Espinoza, Jr. v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hinojosa v. State, 995 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
Juan Jose HINOJOSA, Jr., Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
14-97-00836-CR, 14-97-00839-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Jul 1, 1999.
995 S.W.2d 955
Patricia Sedita, Houston, for appellants., Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Houston, for appellees.
Don Wittig.
Cited by 67 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

DON WITTIG, Justice.

Appellant, Juan Jose Hinojosa, Jr., appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. .After finding appellant guilty of both charges, the jury assessed his punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for forty years and twenty years, respectively.. Appellant brings three points of error on appeal, asserting that the trial court erred in admitting appellant’s extraneous offenses against the complaining witnesses in violation of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37 and Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. We affirm.

Background

Appellant is the older brother of C.H. and K.H. At trial, appellant admitted that over a period of ten years he touched C.H.’s breasts and private parts at least once a week. Appellant further admitted that this touching totaled 520 times. C.H. testified that appellant fondled her breasts and her vagina two or three times a week from the time that she was four until she was twelve or thirteen years old. C.H. additionally testified that appellant penetrated her vagina with his finger around October 1, 1991. When C.H. was thirteen, appellant penetrated her vagina with his penis. Appellant stopped sexual contact with C.H. when she reached fourteen years old.

K.H. testified that appellant started touching her breasts and genital area when she was ten years old. K.H. said that appellant did this about ten times and that the last time he touched her was Thanksgiving of 1996. Appellant admitted at trial that he was guilty of committing indecency with a child against his sister K.H.

[*957] Discussion

In point of error one, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of 520 extraneous offenses because that evidence violated Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37. On direct examination, C.H. testified that appellant had touched her at least once a week for ten years. This totaled 520 times. Appellant claims on appeal that this evidence of extraneous offenses exceeded the intended scope of article 38.37.

Article 38.37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:

Notwithstanding Rules 404 and 405, Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts committed by the defendant against the child who is the victim of the alleged offense shall be admitted for its bearing on relevant matters, including: (1) the state of mind of the defendant and child; and (2) the previous and subsequent relationship between the defendant and the child.

Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. art. 38.37 (Vernon Supp.1998). It is clear from the plain language of article 38.37 that C.H.’s testimony of other acts appellant committed against her was admissible to show the state of mind of appellant and C.H. and the previous and subsequent relationship between appellant and C.H. The purpose of article 38.37 is to make evidence of these types of extraneous acts admissible. Point of error one is overruled.

In point of error two and three, appellant claims that these extraneous acts were admitted in violation of Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. Rules 401 and 402 state that evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible. Tex.R. Evid. 401, 402. In Ernst v. State, the Austin Court of Appeals explained that evidence of extraneous sexual conduct explains how “a person in a position of authority, custody, or care of a young child has developed an unnatural attitude and relationship toward that child to explain the charged act-an act that would otherwise seem wholly illogical and implausible to the average juror.” Ernst v. State, 971 S.W.2d 698, 700 (Tex.App.—Austin, 1998, no pet.) (quoting Johns v. State, 155 Tex.Crim. 503, 236 S.W.2d 820, 823 (1951)). C.H.’s testimony concerning the extraneous acts against her were relevant to show the state of mind of appellant and C.H. and the previous and subsequent relationship between appellant and C.H. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.37. Therefore, this evidence was relevant and did not violate rule 401 or 402.

Appellant further asserts that the probative value of this evidence was far outweighed by the prejudicial effect that it had on the jury. The first time testimony regarding these acts was elicited at trial, appellant made a timely Rule 403 objection which the court overruled. Tex.R. Evid. 4.03;see Tex.R.App. P. 33.1; Tex.R. Evid. 103(a). When a defendant makes a Rule 403 objection, the court has a non-discretionary obligation to weigh the probative value of the evidence against the unfair prejudice of its admission. See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 389 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh’g). In overruling such an objection, the court is assumed to have applied a Rule 403 balancing test and determined the evidence was admissible. See Yates v. State, 941 S.W.2d 357, 367 (Tex.App.—Waco 1997, pet. ref'd); Caballero v. State, 919 S.W.2d 919, 922 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. refd). Rule 403 does not require that the balancing test be performed on the record. See Yates, 941 S.W.2d at 367. Because appellant objected on specific grounds and the trial court overruled the objection, we assume that the trial court applied Rule 403 and determined that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice. See id.

Appellant contends that even if the court did conduct a Rule 403 analysis, it abused its discretion by admitting highly inflammatory evidence. We disagree. The trial court is given wide latitude to admit or exclude evidence of extraneous[*958] offenses. See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 390. We will not reverse a trial court’s ruling if it is within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” Id. at 391. In balancing probative value and unfair prejudice under Rule 403, an appellate court presumes that the probative value will outweigh any prejudicial effect. See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389; Blakeney v. State, 911 S.W.2d 508, 515 (Tex.App.—Austin 1995, no pet.) It is therefore the objecting party’s burden to show that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

In Ernst v. State, the court held, in a similar action where a defendant was charged with indecency with a child, that any prejudice resulting from that child’s testimony regarding her father’s extraneous sexual offenses was not significant enough to outweigh its probative force in showing his state of mind and the nature of their relationship — two purposes for which article 38.37 allows such evidence. 971 S.W.2d 698, 701 (Tex.App.—Austin, 1998, no pet.). In Poole v. State, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the prejudicial effect of testimony that the child victim was sexually assaulted over 750 times by her father during a four year period did not outweigh the probative value of that testimony. 974 S.W.2d 892, 898 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.).

At trial, appellant objected to C.H.’s testimony about her brother’s previous sexual offenses against her. This testimony was probative in establishing the states of mind of both C.H. and appellant. It tended to show that appellant had the necessary intent and ability to commit the offenses and to show that both girls were compelled to acquiesce. C.H.’s testimony was also a significant indicator of the nature of the relationship between the two before and after the incident. Because the evidence was probative in showing appellant’s and C.H.’s states of mind and established the nature of their relationship, the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence was within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 391. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Any error nevertheless would have been made harmless when evidence of the same acts was admitted later at trial without objection by appellant. See Woolls v. State, 665 S.W.2d 455, 470 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding no reversible error in admission of testimony relating to extraneous offense where evidence of same acts properly admitted elsewhere at trial). Points of error two and three are overruled.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.