Adrian Lee Whitemon v. State, 460 S.W.3d 170

Appellant Adrian Lee Whitemon was convicted of possession of four or more grams of cocaine but less than 200 grams, and the trial court sentenced him to 35 years with an enhancement finding true.
The State obtained a no-knock search-and-arrest warrant for 2377 Dalworth, Apartment 235, Grand Prairie, Texas, leading to seizure of drugs, money, and occupants including Whitemon.
Whitemon challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the warrant and the ensuing evidence, arguing the warrant lacked sufficient description and corroboration.
The affidavits described a target named Cush/Cush with a physical description, provided indicia of reliability via two controlled buys, and the magistrate found probable cause; the trial court denied suppression as constitutional.
During voir dire, Whitemon sought questions about juror commitments regarding possession and presence, which the court limited; the third point involved admission of extraneous bad-acts evidence (bond officer testimony) proved against Whitemon.
The appellate court affirmed, holding no reversible error in suppression, voir dire limitations, or admission of the extraneous bad-acts evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voir dire limitations on commitment questions	Whitemon argues the court improperly curtailed proper voir dire	State contends trial court exercised proper control and questions were improper	Harmless error; no reversible impact on verdict
Sufficiency of warrant and suppression ruling	Warrant lacked precise description and corroboration; suppression should have been granted	Affidavits provided probable cause and reliability; warrant valid	Denial of suppression upheld; warrant valid and admissible evidence
Admission of extraneous bad acts evidence	Bond-officer statement prejudicial and improper	Probative value outweighed prejudice; supports State's theory	No abuse of discretion; evidence admissible and probative

Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (voir dire commitment questions; improper questions require valid cause or harmless if cured)
Atkins v. State, 951 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (limits on using hypothetical questions in voir dire)
Shipley v. State, 790 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (trial court control of voir dire; improper use of facts in questions)
Martin v. State, 753 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (probable-cause standard in affidavits; reliance on informant information)
Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable-cause assessment; standard for warrant affidavits)
Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; historical fact deference)