Michael T. Castaldo, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that Rule 404(b) bars admission of the driver’s extraneous conduct because it was offered to show the appellant’s character, and that a limiting instruction was not required for the appellant’s alcohol intoxication evidence as same‑transaction contextual evidence. Justice Meyers filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that relevance of third‑party acts is generally a Rule 402 issue.