Jesse Beam v. State, 447 S.W.3d 401

Appellant Jesse Beam was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
Complainant, the judge’s stepdaughter, alleged abuse occurring in 2009 when she was seven years old.
Defense theory framed as complainant fabricating the story to remove Beam from the home, highlighting Beam’s military background and disciplinarian reputation.
During trial, evidence of an extraneous offense from 2005 (when the complainant was three) was admitted, suggesting prior statements and alleged abuse by Beam.
The extraneous-offense evidence included hospital and children’s-center records and testimony, but the complainant did not testify about the 2005 incident.
Beam challenged both the admissibility of the extraneous-offense evidence and a jury instruction related to Article 38.37 and limiting-instruction language.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence under Article 38.37	Beam argues 38.37 requires stronger proof and that prejudice outweighed value	State contends evidence relevant to motive/relationship and supports credibility	Evidence admissible; no abuse of discretion under 38.37; probative value outweighs prejudice
Limiting instruction regarding extraneous-offense evidence	Beam contends instruction did not track Article 38.37 language	State argues limiting instruction not required absent timely request; error, if any, is subject to Almanza harmless error	No egregious harm; limitation instruction not required where no timely request; if error, not shown to be harmful

Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (standard for abuse of discretion in admitting extraneous offenses)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (zone of reasonable disagreement for evidentiary rulings)
Burke v. State, 371 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (relevance and admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence under 38.37)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (probative evidence standard for extraneous acts (reasonable-doubt threshold))
Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1989) (extraneous-offense admissibility independent of acquittal status)
McNeil v. State, 398 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (extraneous offenses admissible when relevant to issue in dispute)
Dunklin v. State, 194 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (extraneous-offense admissibility principle in Rule 404/38.37 context)
Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (limiting instructions and prejudice considerations)
Hitt v. State, 53 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001) (Article 38.37 vs. Rule 404(b) considerations)
Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Rule 105 limiting instruction framework)
Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (Rule 105 interpretation for absence of request)
Rankin v. State, 974 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (necessity of timely limiting instruction)