Matthew Alan Simmons v. State, 08-14-00043-CR

Appellant was convicted of indecency with a child by exposure (Tex. Pen. Code §21.11(a)(2)) after a Walmart incident in which a 12-year-old girl identified him as having exposed his genitals and invited her to touch them. He was sentenced to six years and a $10,000 fine.
Store surveillance showed Appellant (wearing a distinctive yellow/black shirt) in the store and in the toy aisle, though no camera captured the actual exposure. Appellant initially denied the conduct, then told police the exposure was accidental (failed to zip after using the bathroom; no underwear).
Defense emphasized the accident/mistake theory and attacked the victim’s credibility through cross-examination and opening statement.
The State sought to admit testimony from a Georgia investigator that child pornography videos (depicting girls ~7–10, some with adult males) were found on a computer linked to Appellant, to show motive/intent and to rebut the accident defense. The court excluded the videos themselves and limited descriptive detail, admitting only the investigator’s testimony about the files.
The trial court instructed the jury that any testimony about other bad acts could be considered only if the jury first found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed them, and then only for intent or absence of mistake.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Simmons)	Held
Admissibility of child-pornography evidence under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b)	The evidence shows motive/intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire and rebuts the accident/mistake defense	Evidence was impermissible propensity proof; State was rebutting a defense Simmons did not legitimately advance	Court: Admissible — evidence relevant to intent and to rebut accident defense because Simmons raised accident and attacked credibility (no abuse of discretion)
Rule 403 balancing (prejudicial effect vs. probative value)	Probative value is high (motive, rebuttal); State needed it because event not independently corroborated; presentation was limited	Highly inflammatory child-pornography evidence was unduly prejudicial and risked juror emotional decision-making	Court: No abuse of discretion — probative value not substantially outweighed prejudice; videos excluded but testimony limited; brief presentation and limiting instruction mitigated risk

Robles v. State, 85 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (defendant should be tried only for charged crime; limits on propensity evidence)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Rule 404(b) allows extraneous offenses for non-character purposes such as intent and absence of mistake)
Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (rebuttal of defensive theory is a permissible non-character purpose under Rule 404(b))
Morgan v. State, 692 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (extraneous acts admissible to rebut accident/mistake in sexual-offense cases)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (relevance standard; probative value need only give a "nudge" toward a fact of consequence)
Sarabia v. State, 227 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (photos of child pornography admissible to show intent/motive in sex offense case)
Darby v. State, 922 S.W.2d 614 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996) (possession of sexually suggestive material relevant to motive/intent)
Prior v. State, 647 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (flasher facts describing clear intent; discussed re: when extraneous evidence is necessary)
Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Rule 403: relevant evidence may be excluded when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)