Clyde Edwin Hedrick v. State, 473 S.W.3d 824

In 1984 Ellen Beason disappeared; her remains were later found and exhumations revealed a skull fracture; death ultimately ruled a homicide.
Clyde Hedrick was prosecuted for murder; at trial the jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced him to 20 years.
Key witnesses: Candy Gifford (friend of the victim) testified she saw Hedrick show her the victim's remains in 1984 but did not report it until 1985; she also testified Hedrick threatened her and later ransacked her apartment.
At a prior misdemeanor abuse-of-corpse trial, Hedrick testified the victim drowned accidentally; the State introduced his earlier testimony at the murder trial.
During trial the State sought to substitute the indictment's two listed enhancements with a single 1977 attempted-arson conviction on the business day before the punishment phase; Hedrick objected to the late notice but did not request a continuance.
The trial court admitted Gifford’s testimony about threats and apartment destruction over Hedrick’s objection; the jury found the substituted enhancement true and assessed punishment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hedrick)	Held
Admissibility of extraneous-act evidence (threats and apartment destruction)	Evidence shows consciousness of guilt and rebuts defense theory; admissible under Rule 404(b) and not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403	Extraneous acts were irrelevant to whether Hedrick caused victim's death and were unduly prejudicial	Admitted: threats showed consciousness of guilt; apartment destruction admissible to rebut defensive opening; trial court did not abuse discretion
Sufficiency of notice for substituted enhancement (1977 attempted arson)	Notice given at start of punishment phase was adequate; Hedrick had no shown need for continuance or defense to the prior conviction	One business day’s notice violated due process and impaired preparation to contest enhancement	Adequate: notice satisfied due process under controlling authority; no continuance requested and no defense to enhancement shown

Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standards for appellate review of evidentiary discretion and rule 403 balancing)
Page v. State, 213 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Rule 404(b) admissibility requires relevance apart from character conformity and a Rule 403 balancing)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for conducting a Rule 403 probative-value vs. prejudice balancing)
Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (due-process notice for enhancements judged by whether defendant’s ability to defend was impaired)
Garza v. State, 383 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (adequate enhancement notice can be given at punishment phase where defendant does not request continuance or present a challenge to the prior)