Johnny Rodriguez, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that the minor's testimony about multiple deliveries was not extraneous offense evidence but evidence of the repeated commission of the charged offense, and that the minor was not an accomplice to the delivery. The Court relied on the precedents Rankin and Sledge and concluded that the proper remedy is an election by the State, which was not requested. The Court also held that the minor's role as a recipient does not make her a party to the offense, so no accomplice instruction was required. Justice Meyers, dissenting, argued that the repeated‑delivery testimony should be excluded as extraneous and that the majority’s approach undermines Rule 404(b).