Mark Fruge v. State, 03-14-00724-CR

Mark Fruge was tried in Travis County for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault of a public servant; convicted and sentenced to life; appealed.
At trial, store employees identified Fruge as the Fallas Discount robber who fired rounds into the register area; officers pursued a vehicle, shots were exchanged, and an APD officer was wounded.
Police recovered a Glock and a magazine bearing Fruge’s name and address; Fruge was later arrested at an apartment complex.
During jury selection the State moved to strike veniremember Jason Samaniego-Krant for cause based on comments that he needed to be "100 percent certain" before convicting; the trial court granted the challenge.
During guilt/innocence the State elicited testimony and showed photos regarding an alleged car-jacking/abduction that occurred during Fruge’s flight; Fruge objected as improper extraneous-offense evidence under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403, but the court admitted it.
Appellant’s brief raises two principal appellate complaints: (1) erroneous grant of the State’s challenge for cause, depriving Fruge of an impartial jury, and (2) erroneous admission of an extraneous offense (the car-jacking) that was more prejudicial than probative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fruge)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in granting the State's challenge for cause to veniremember Samaniego-Krant	The veniremember expressed uncertainty and used "100 percent" language, indicating he could not follow the law's "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, so challenge for cause was proper	The juror ultimately said he would hold the State to its burden and follow the law; asking for "100 percent" reflected his personal caution, not inability to apply the legal standard; excusal applied a higher-than-required threshold	The brief argues the court applied the wrong standard and improperly excused a juror who could follow the law (requests reversal citing Gray v. Mississippi)
Whether admission of testimony/photos about an alleged car-jacking (extraneous offense) was improper	The State claimed the episode was admissible as contextual evidence of flight/same-transaction context and probative to link events during Fruge’s escape	Fruge argues the charged-offense evidence and capture were already fully explained without the car-jacking; the extraneous event was irrelevant to the charged offenses and served only to show bad character, making it inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403	The brief contends the admission was erroneous and not harmless; seeks reversal and new trial

Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987) (erroneous removal for cause of juror who was not substantially impaired can require reversal without harmless-error analysis)
Uttecht v. Washington, 551 U.S. 1 (2007) (deference to trial-court juror-bias determinations in capital cases)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (standard for excusing jurors for cause when views would prevent jury service in accordance with law)
Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (reviewing courts defer to trial judge's demeanor-based rulings on juror bias; proponent bears burden to show venireman cannot follow law)
Murphy v. State, 112 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (jurors may form individual definitions of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and are not challengeable for cause based solely on differing thresholds)
Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial courts not required to define reasonable doubt; constitution neither requires nor forbids such definitions)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (on rehearing) (framework for admitting extraneous-offense evidence: relevance apart from character conformity, then Rule 403 balancing)
Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (same-transaction contextual evidence admissible only if necessary to jury's understanding of the charged offense)