Jordan, Raleigh, PD-0356-15

Raleigh Jordan, an HPD officer, was convicted by a jury of two counts of tampering with a governmental record (state‑jail felonies); sentences (2 years each) were suspended and community supervision imposed.
Internal Affairs found supplemental entries to 2009 and 2011 police reports had been added after the files were closed; several supplements bore Officer R.T. Lewis’s name and payroll number but forensic evidence showed they were entered from Jordan’s secure work computer.
Jordan’s apparent motive was to reopen/maintain investigations so grand‑jury subpoenas could be issued to obtain his wife’s financial records; letters accompanying subpoenas directed replies to Officer Jordan.
At trial the court admitted evidence about the grand‑jury subpoenas and related materials; the State argued admission both under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b) (motive) and as “same‑transaction contextual evidence.”
On appeal the First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the grand‑jury‑subpoena evidence was admissible both as Rule 404(b) evidence of motive and as same‑transaction contextual evidence, and that no Rule 105(a) limiting instruction was required for same‑transaction evidence. Jordan sought discretionary review, arguing the appellate court erred in treating the evidence as same‑transaction and thus in denying entitlement to a Rule 105(a) limiting instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jordan)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	Evidence insufficient because no witness directly testified who made the entries	Circumstantial proof (forensic receipts, use of Lewis’s payroll number from Jordan’s computer, motive) supports conviction	Affirmed: evidence legally sufficient
Admissibility of grand‑jury subpoena evidence	Evidence was not same‑transaction contextual (lack of temporal proximity); admission was irrelevant and prejudicial	Admissible both as 404(b) evidence of motive and as same‑transaction contextual/background evidence necessary to understand the falsifications	Affirmed: admissible for both purposes
Motion for new trial hearing	Trial court erred by not holding hearing on motion alleging ineffective assistance	Motion lacked timely supporting affidavit; untimely affidavit was not properly before court	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying hearing
Ineffective assistance re: limiting instruction	Counsel ineffective for failing to request a Rule 105(a) limiting instruction when extraneous evidence was admitted under 404(b)	No limiting instruction required for same‑transaction contextual evidence; counsel not ineffective for failing to request an improper instruction	Affirmed: counsel not ineffective because evidence was same‑transaction contextual and Rule 105(a) not required

Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (explaining same‑transaction contextual evidence and its effect on limiting‑instruction requirements)
Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (discussing limits and necessity for admitting same‑transaction contextual evidence)
Westbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (treating closely related events as admissible context/res gestae)
Castaldo v. State, 78 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding intoxication contemporaneous with offense could be admitted as same‑transaction contextual evidence)
Jackson v. State, 992 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (discussing prejudice from failing to give limiting instruction when extraneous offenses are admitted)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence)