Faustino Collazo, Jr., Appellant v. the State of Texas, Appellee

Summary

The Court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an extraneous offense because the alleged similarities were not sufficiently distinctive to prove the appellant's identity, and therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The Court emphasized that extraneous offenses are admissible only when they are nearly identical to the charged conduct and their probative value outweighs prejudice. Judge Onion, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the reversal but criticized portions of the majority’s reasoning.