Can subsequent offenses be used for evidence of knowledge under 404b? We have a defendant on trial right now for a robbery out of a series of robberies and can only corroborate the accomplice testimony on some of the subsequent robberies. Our defendant admits to the Detective he knew the gunman was going to rob a store when he drove him there, he just thought the gunman was joking, so knowledge and intent is the issue. Anybody point me in a good direction?

i remember looking at this issue not too long ago... i had a theft case i was trying, with what i thought was a subsequent theft committed by the same defendant (turned out though it was a previous recent so i got to use 31.03(c) without any problems). But, before i realized that, i did do a little research on the subsequents. i don't have the case law anymore, but if you look for 31.03(c) related case law, and maybe add a subsequent offense search term in your search, i bet you will find the 404(b) arguments intermixed in there... if i remember correctly, it seems like the argument was made successfully at least a couple of times under 404(b)... good luck.

You are a lifesaver, Dee. Thanks!