Tracy Ray Hass v. State, 12-14-00189-CR

On Jan. 16, 2012 Deputy Bowling responded to a 2:13 a.m. complaint of vehicles on vacant property; he observed a forced-open gate and multiple inoperable cars on the lot.
About three hours later he located a vehicle ~15 yards from the damaged gate, stuck in a ditch with the trunk open and heavy objects concealed under a sheet; appellant was near the vehicle.
When approached, appellant closed the trunk, appeared nervous and evasive, and told the deputy the concealed items were auto parts he had purchased from a friend but gave vague, shifting explanations about origin and ownership.
Deputy Bowling arrested appellant for theft and searched the vehicle, recovering heavy engine/auto parts. Appellant moved to suppress evidence, arguing the arrest lacked probable cause.
At trial appellant did not testify; his girlfriend (Williams) asserted she owned the car, bought the parts, and that appellant lacked knowledge/intent. The State sought to introduce appellant's prior burglaries/theft under Rule 404(b) to rebut that defensive theory.
The trial court denied the suppression motion and admitted the extraneous-offense evidence with a jury instruction limiting its use to intent; the State appeals to affirm those rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hass)	Held
Whether the arrest and vehicle search lacked probable cause such that evidence should be suppressed	Deputy Bowling had probable cause based on (i) forced-open gate and multiple inoperable cars on the lot, (ii) appellant at scene with concealed auto parts at night, (iii) evasive demeanor and inconsistent statements	Arrest was illegal/unsupported by sufficient evidence of theft at time of arrest	Trial court did not abuse discretion; probable cause existed to arrest and search the vehicle (suppression denied)
Whether the trial court erred by admitting appellant's prior convictions under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b) to rebut defense that appellant lacked knowledge/intent	Extraneous-offense evidence was admissible to rebut defensive theory that appellant had no intent or knowledge; limiting instruction and relevance to intent mitigated unfair prejudice	Admission was improper character evidence that prejudiced the jury	Trial court did not abuse discretion: defense raised lack-of-intent theory through Williams, 404(b) rebuttal permitted, jury instructed to consider priors only for intent

Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (review of mixed law–fact issues; deference when credibility/demeanor are pivotal)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations reviewed de novo in light of totality of circumstances)
State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889 (trial court as factfinder at suppression hearings; credibility determinations afforded deference)
Garcia v. State, 15 S.W.3d 533 (trial court may accept or reject all or part of witness testimony at suppression hearing)
Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (extraneous-offense evidence admissible to rebut defensive theory under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b))
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (abuse-of-discretion standard for admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence)
Rankin v. State, 974 S.W.2d 707 (appellate review standard for Rule 404(b) rulings)