Defendant’s Written Objection to Admissibility of Extraneous Offenses, Request for Procedural Determination by Trial Court with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and for Limiting Instruction
Jim Lane and David Richards
CAUSE NO. _______________
STATE OF TEXAS	§	IN THE DISTRICT COURT
	§	
vs.	§	_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
	§	
_______________________	§	_____________ COUNTY, TEXAS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
	NOW COMES, the Defendant in the above entitled and numbered cause, by and through his attorney of record, and files this, his Written Objection to Admissibility of Extraneous Offenses, Request for Procedural Determination by Trial Court with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and for Limiting Instruction, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows:
I.
	Rule 401, Texas Rules of Evidence state as follows:
	“Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 
	Rule 402, Texas Rules of Evidence states as follows:
	All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by constitution, by statue, by these rules or by other rules prescribed pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. 
	Rule 403, Texas Rules of Evidence states as follows:
	Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
	Rule 404(b), Texas Rules of Evidence states as follows:
(b)	
Other crimes, wrongs or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided, upon timely request by the accused, reasonable notice is given in advance of trial of intent to introduce in the State’s case in chief such evidence other than that arising in the same transaction.
II.
	The State of Texas is seeking the introduction of extraneous offenses. Such evidence may be admissible where it “makes more or less probable” an evidentiary fact that leads to an element or “make more or less probable” defensive evidence that undermines (or negates) an elemental fact. (Rule 401 and 402 T.R.E.).
	Even if evidence is deemed relevant, such is still not admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by its danger of unfair prejudice or propensity to confuse, delay, mislead or cumulate. (Rule 403 T.R.E.).
III.
	The Defendant objects to the admission of such extraneous offense evidence under: Rules 401, 402, and 403(b) T.R.E. and requests the State to prove such evidence has relevance other than proving character of person to show he acted in conformance with the conduct alleged. 
IV.
	If the Court overrules the objection in paragraph III above, the Defendant hereby requests that the Court make findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its determination that the evidence (1) establishes an elemental fact, (2) establishes an evidentiary fact that inferentially leads to an elemental fact, (3) rebuts a defensive theory, or (4) has some other logical relevance.
V.
	Further, the Defendant requests that the Court properly instruct the jury to confine and limit its consideration of such evidence to the purpose articulated by the State. 
VI.
	Still further, the Defendant would also, due to the Court admitting such evidence, object because of the unfair prej­u­dice, confusion, misleading nature, delay and/or accumulation resulting from this evidence (Rule 403 T.R.E.). Additionally, the Defendant requests the Court make findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to this evidence causing unfair prejudice, confusing, misleading, delay and/or accumulation.
AUTHORITY
	Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, ________________ prays that the State be ordered to provide said discovery relating to witnesses in this case as requested in this motion.

Attorney for _____________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
	This is to certify that on _________, 201__, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney’s Office, ________________ County, ____________________, _____________, TX _____, by hand delivery.

____________________________________________

NOTICE OF SETTING
	On_________________, the Defendant filed the above motion. A hearing on this motion is set for _____________, at _____________________.

Signed on _______________________________________.

______________________________________
JUDGE / COURT-COORDINATOR

CAUSE NO. _______________
STATE OF TEXAS	§	IN THE DISTRICT COURT
	§	
vs.	§	_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
	§	
_______________________	§	_____________ COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER
	On _________________, 201__, came on to be considered ______________________’s Motion for Witness List, and said motion is hereby

(Granted) (Denied)

__________________________________________