Jay Chung v. State, 10-16-00242-CR

Jay Yoon Chung was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to 20 years with punishment enhanced by two prior indecency-with-a-child convictions. This appeal concerns the new punishment trial after the prior punishment sentence was reversed and remanded.
At the new punishment trial the State presented, in rebuttal, a Dallas sex-offender-unit detective and a jailhouse informant (an inmate) who testified about Chung's statements and threats made while both were imprisoned together.
The inmate testified Chung admitted a long-standing desire to molest young girls, described luring them into his van with a puppy, and threatened prosecutors; counsel objected only after the testimony was given.
Chung objected that the State failed to give required pretrial notice under Art. 37.07 and Rule 404(b) for the detective’s testimony and argued the inmate testimony should have been excluded under Rule 403 as unfairly prejudicial.
Chung also challenged the trial court’s assessment of $10,174.72 in court-appointed attorney’s fees, asserting he remained indigent and the record contained no evidence he was no longer indigent.

Issue	Chung's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Trial court assessed court-appointed attorney's fees despite Chung's indigence	Fee assessment improper; no evidence Chung was no longer indigent	Assessment proper as entered	Fee assessment improper; judgment modified to delete $10,174.72 (sustained)
Admission of inmate (jailhouse) testimony under Rule 403	Testimony highly prejudicial; probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice	No timely Rule 403 objection; testimony admissible	Objection untimely; complaint waived; admission upheld (overruled)
Admission of detective's rebuttal testimony without pretrial notice under Art. 37.07 / Rule 404(b)	Lack of notice prevented preparation to rebut; testimony should be barred	Evidence was offered in rebuttal, not in State's case-in-chief, so notice rule not violated	Admission proper because testimony was rebuttal evidence and notice requirement did not apply (overruled)

Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (fee-assessment requires evidence defendant is not indigent)
Jaubert v. State, 74 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (no Art. 37.07/Rule 404(b) violation when evidence presented in rebuttal rather than State's case-in-chief)
Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (timeliness rule for objections to admission of evidence: must object when ground becomes apparent)
Yoon Chung v. State, 475 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014) (prior appeal reversing punishment and remanding for new punishment trial)