This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Williams (D) was represented by a court-appointed attorney during his trial. However, he filed six pro se motions on his own behalf and a pro se brief. D wanted to pick his own jury and cross-examine the complaining witness. The trial court granted these requests. During cross-examination, the complaining witness alluded to a prior extraneous offense alleged to have been committed by D. The witness testified that D had robbed him before. D objected, and the trial court sustained the objection. The testimony was brought out on numerous other occasions during trial without objection, and the trial court ordered the jury not to consider that evidence unless it found beyond a reasonable doubt that a common plan or scheme was involved or for determining identity, intent, motive, or malice of D. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.