Rubio v. State

I agree that the remarkably similar as-saultive transaction offered by the State in this cause was admissible to rebut appellant’s defensive testimony; I write only to point out what I perceive as the vulnerabili*503ty of attempting to resolve an evidentiary question, such as the one before us, through application of the mechanics of a “general rule" and its “exceptions.” Citing an “exception” “to the rule against extraneous offenses,” the majority concludes that the similar transaction here was admissible on the issue of appellant’s “intent,” characterizing such issue as having been…