Asim Shakur Rahim v. State, 06-14-00147-CR

Rahim was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor Assault after a store disturbance in Paris, Texas.
Evidence included Rahim’s admission of punching Solomon and the ensuing struggle; self-defense was argued.
The State was allowed to cross-examine Rahim about prior acts of assault, then the court instructed the jury on using extraneous acts to show character.
The jury instruction stated extraneous acts could show motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, or peaceful character, which mischaracterizes admissible uses.
Two core issues: whether the trial court erred by permitting extraneous acts to prove Rahim’s character and whether the costs of court could be imposed with no certified bill of costs.
The appellate court ultimately held the jury instruction error constituted egregious harm and reversed/remanded; the costs issue was also unresolved due to lack of a certified bill of costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of prior bad acts to prove character	Rahim	State	Erroneous instruction; egregious harm; reversed
Costs of court with no certified bill	Rahim	State	Insufficient record; cannot impose costs

Matthews v. State, 979 S.W.2d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. – Eastland 1998) (admissibility limits for extraneous acts; motive/intent limitations on character evidence)
Warner v. State, 245 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (harm standard for jury-charge error; egregious harm framework)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (general harm analysis in jury-charge errors)
Brown v. State, 477 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (evidence of extraneous acts not admissible to prove character)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Rule 404/405 limitations on character evidence; purpose of extraneous acts)
Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (impeachment of a witness through specific acts; limits on character evidence)