Malpica v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that if the evidence is admitted, the jury must be instructed that it should not consider the extraneous offenses unless it believes beyond reasonable doubt that the “accused was the perpetrator”
• stating that if the evidence is admitted, the jury must be instructed that it should not consider the extraneous offenses unless it believes beyond reasonable doubt that the \accused was the perpetrator\
• stating that if the evidence is admitted, the jury must be instructed that it should not consider the extraneous offenses unless it believes beyond reasonable doubt that the “accused was the perpetrator”
• stating that if the evidence is admitted, the jury must be instructed that it should not consider the extraneous offenses unless it believes beyond reasonable doubt that the \accused was the perpetrator\
• “If the judge is satisfied that there is evidence upon which a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the extraneous misconduct, the defendant, in order to preserve error, must object to the introduction of the evidence of the extraneous bad act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).