Willie Dee Price v. State, 594 S.W.3d 674

Willie Dee Price was convicted by a Fannin County jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Tammy) and sentenced to life imprisonment.
During jury selection several veniremembers said they could not consider the statutory minimum for what they described as the “worst child sexual assault” they could imagine; Price sought challenges for cause, used peremptory strikes, and requested additional strikes.
Price did not identify any seated juror he was forced to accept after the court denied his challenges for cause; the record shows the jurors he said he would strike were not necessarily seated.
The State presented extraneous-offense testimony from four relatives who testified Price sexually abused them as children; Price objected as irrelevant, prejudicial, remote, and cumulative.
The trial court admitted the extraneous-offense evidence under Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.37 and gave limiting instructions; on appeal the court reviewed admission for abuse of discretion using a Rule 403 balancing analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Price)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Trial court refused to excuse veniremembers who said they could not consider the minimum sentence in a “worst-case” hypothetical	Denial of challenges for cause was error because those veniremembers could not consider full range of punishment	Error not preserved: Price did not show he was forced to accept any identified objectionable juror after exhausting peremptories	Overruled — error not preserved; Price failed third preservation requirement from Buntion
Admission of extraneous-offense testimony (four alleged child victims)	Testimony was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial, remote, and should have been excluded under Rule 403	Admissible under Art. 38.37 as probative of intent/propensity and needed given Tammy’s late outcry and credibility attack; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice	Overruled — trial court did not abuse its discretion; Rule 403 balancing supported admission

Buntion v. State, 482 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (preservation requirements for peremptory-challenge error)
Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (limits on commitment questions during voir dire)
Cardenas v. State, 325 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (permissible voir dire on consideration of full punishment range; improper to add evidentiary facts)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Rule 403 balancing factors for admission of evidence)
Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for extraneous-offense rulings)
Bradshaw v. State, 466 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref’d) (application of art. 38.37 and Rule 403 in child-sexual-offense trials)
Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (limits on hypothetical commitment questions)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (preference for admitting logically relevant evidence)