De La Paz v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “if the trial court’s evidentiary ruling is correct on any theory of law applicable to that ruling, it will not be disturbed”
• holding that one well- 18 established rationale for admitting evidence of extraneous misconduct under Rule 404(b) is to rebut defensive theory that negates element of offense
• holding that evidence of other “buy-bust” drug deals was allowed under Rule 404(b) when appellant’s defensive theory was that State’s witnesses were lying about the instant drug deal to please prosecution
• explaining that trial court’s ruling admitting extraneous-offense evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) is within the zone of reasonable disagreement “if the evidence shows that 1
• noting that rule 403 is rule of inclusion rather than exclusion and that it only excludes evidence offered solely for purpose of proving bad character
• stating that a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of extraneous offenses is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).