Manuel Delatorre Perez v. The State of Texas

In his sole issue, Perez complains that the notice provided by the State pursuant to

Rule 404(b) of the Rules of Evidence was insufficient to give him notice of additional

sexual offenses that occurred after the alleged offenses for which he was tried and the

lack of adequate notice constituted an unfair surprise to him.

Rule 404(b)(2) states in relevant part:

On timely request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must provide reasonable notice before trial that the prosecution intends to introduce such evidence … in its case-in-chief. TEX. R. EVID. 404(b).

During his cross-examination of the victim, the victim was asked whether he had

gone back to Perez's house after the alleged offenses. The victim responded to Perez's

question stating that he had been forced to engage in sexual encounters with Perez at his

house after the alleged offenses. After the victim's answer, counsel for Perez asked to

approach the bench and objected to the failure of the State to provide adequate notice

pursuant to Rule 404(b). However, because this evidence was not admitted during the

State's case-in-chief, the sufficiency of the notice is not at issue. See Jaubert v. State, 74

S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ("The extraneous offense evidence in this case was

introduced during cross-examination and rebuttal testimony, not in the State's case-in

Perez v. State Page 3



chief. Therefore, appellant was not entitled to notice of the extraneous offenses."). We

overrule Perez's sole issue.1

Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.