EXHIBITG

Request For Hearing Outside Of Presence Of Jury

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES, John Doe, Defendant, and files this request for a hearing outside the presence of the jury, and in support thereof shows:

1. This Request for Hearing Outside the Presence of the Jury, is made in accordance with the Defendant's Motion for Notice of State's Intention to Use Evidence of Extraneous Offenses at Trial, or the Defendant's Written Request for Notice of State's Intention to Use Evidence of Extraneous Offenses at Trial, which has been filed in the above styled and numbered cause, and a copy of which has been delivered to the *** 1 h Judicial District Attorney's Office, as evidenced by the Certificate of Service attached thereto.

2. Defendant is aware that the State may during the course of the Defendant's trial, whether during the guilt/innocence phase and/or punishment phase of said trial, attempt to bring in evidence concerning offense(s) event(s) and/or action(s), allegedly committed by the Defendant, which are extraneous in nature ((As is defined by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Rankin v. State) (See Rankin v. State, 974 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996)). As such, the Defendant requests that the Court conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury, in accordance with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals holding in Harrell v State ((Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994)) , and pursuant to Rule 104 (b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence, to consider the following:

A. Defendant would request that the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing , outside the presence of the jury, such that this Court can make an initial determination at the conclusion of the State ' s proffer of evidence regarding extraneous act(s) and / or offense(s) , which were allegedly committed by the Defendant, and determine whether or not a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged extraneous act(s) and / or offense(s) , in fact , were committed by the Defendant. Defendant would argue that the Court "must" find that a jury could reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the extraneous offense as alleged by the State. See Harrell v. State , 884 S.W. 2d 154 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994).

B. Whether or not the Defendant had requested notice of the State ' s Intention to Use Evidence of Extraneous Offenses at Trial , by the timely filing of the Defendant's Motion for Notice of State ' s Intention to Use Evidence of Extraneous Offenses at Trial and receiving a ruling regarding same , or the Defendant's Written Request for Notice of State ' s Intention to Use Evidence of Extraneous Offenses at Trial.

C. Whether or not the State provided adequate and sufficient notice of its intention to use evidence of extraneous offense( s) at trial in accordance with Buchanan v. State, and Hayden v. State. See Generally, Buchanan v. State, 911 S.W. 2d 11 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995) and Hayden v. State, 66 S.W. 2d 269 (Tex.Cr.App. 2001).

D. In the event that the Court determines , based upon the State ' s proffer of evidence , that a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged extraneous act( s) and/or offense( s) , in fact , were committed by the Defendant, Defendant would further object to the admission of any such evidence of the extraneous offense(s) or act(s) , as this evidence is not relevant to the case at bar, pursuant to Rule 401 of the Texas Rules of Evidence , and as such , will not assist the jury in reaching a decision regarding the guilt or innocence of the Defendant, and/or any other issue they are given instruction(s) regarding during the guilt/innocence and / or punishment phase of the Defendant ' s trial.

E. Further , the Defendant would request that in the event that this Court deems that evidence of said extraneous act(s) and / or offense(s) is relevant , under Texas Rules of Evidence 401 , that this Court engage in a balancing test , as provided for under Texas Rules of Evidence 403 , to determine if the prejudicial value of said evidence would be outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Defendant would request that the Court, when undertaking this requested Rule 403 analysis , that it do so by balancing the required factors concerning a Rule 403 analysis , as outlined and in accordance with Gigliobianco v. State. See Gi~liobianco v. State, 210 S.W. 3d, 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Moreover, the Defendant would object to any evidence and/or testimony of this extraneous nature being admitted into evidence , as the probative value of any extraneous act(s) and/or offense(s ) allegedly committed by the Defendant, would be far outweighed by its prejudicial effect, and would result in the Defendant not receiving a fair and impartial trial , as guaranteed to him under the United States and Texas Constitutions.

3. If evidence and / or testimony concerning this extraneous matter( s) is considered in the presence of the jury, the effect on Defendant could be unduly prejudicial, create a suggestion of guilt and thereby infringe on the Defendant's constitutional right to a presumption of innocence, as conferred upon and guaranteed to the Defendant by the United States and Texas Constitutions.

WHEREF O RE, PREMISES CO NSID ERED, Defendant prays that a hearing be conducted outside the presence of the jury , in accordance with the Rule 104 (b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence and the substantive portion of the Defendant's request as outlined herein.

Respectfully submitted ,

Law Offices of JESKO & STEADMAN

612 Earl Garrett Street

Kerrville, Texas 78028

Telephone: (830) 257 -5005

Facsimile: (830) 896-1563

E-mail: jesksted @ ktc.com

By: ________ Clay B . Steadman State Bar No . 00785038 Attorney for John Doe

This is to certify that on , 2017, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on the on the ***1 h Judicial District Attorney's Office, via facsimile.

Via Facsimile No . (***) ***-****

Name of District Attorney

***1 h District Attorney ' s Office

Address Line 1

Address Line 2

Clay B. Steadman

On ________, 2017 , came on to be considered Defendant's Request for Hearing Outside the Presence of the Jury, and said motion is hereby: cc: Via Facsimile No. (830) 896-1563

Clay B. Steadman

Via Facsimile No. (***) ***-**** *** 1 h Judicial District Attorney's Office