Pugh, William Jason, PD-0507-15

William Jason Pugh was convicted in Wood County on two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child; extraneous-offense evidence was admitted under Article 38.37 and the jury convicted, sentencing two life terms concurrent.
The State gave Article 38.37 notice before trial; Pugh challenged the notice as defective and argued the extraneous offenses were insufficient and the jury instructions improper.
Pugh alleged the State’s notice did not meet statutory requirements and that the extraneous-offense evidence should not have been admitted or used by the jury.
The Court of Appeals addressed two related appeals (06-14-00066-CR and 06-14-00067-CR) arising from Wood County cases 22,041-2013 and 22,042-2013.
The court affirmed, holding preservation failings barred review, admission discretionary, and no error in the jury charge; costs were waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Pugh’s Article 38.37 notice properly preserved?	Pugh	Pugh failed to object to contents/timing	Not preserved for review
Was the extraneous-offense evidence properly admitted under Article 38.37?	Pugh challenges admission	Court did not abuse discretion	Within discretion; evidence admissible
Was the jury charge erroneous for omission of extraneous-offense application paragraphs?	Pugh seeks explicit application for each offense	38.37 instruction sufficed	No reversible error
Is the county where the extraneous offenses occurred an element of the offense?	County proof required	County not an element	Not required to prove county for extraneous offenses
Is the date of the extraneous offenses required by Article 37.07 to be identified?	Dates needed	Article 38.37 not about guilt phase; date not required	Dates not required for guilt/innocence under 38.37

Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (two-step harm inquiry for jury-charge errors; application paragraphs)
Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission of extraneous offenses)
Cameron v. State, 241 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (admission of extraneous-offense evidence under 38.37)
Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (jury must follow instructions; presumed obedience to instructions)
Hartson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (preservation requirements under Rule 33.1(a)(1)(A))
James v. State, 47 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (noting preservation/notice considerations)
Andrews v. State, 429 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (notice deficiencies analyzed for impact on defense preparation)
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (circumstantial evidence allowed to infer intent)
Burke v. State, 371 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (extraneous-offense evidence admissibility foundations)
Malpica v. State, 108 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003) (jurisdictional proof and extraneous-offense notice)
Roethel v. State, 80 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (noting standard for admissibility without strict date)