Can the prior bad acts of a witness be brought in under 404(b)?

By its own words, 404(b) is not confined to acts of the defendant alone. In contrast look at 404(a)(1) which limits its application to the accused; 404(a)(2) confined to victim, and 404(b)(3) witnesses generally. Currently. I cannot get onto LEXIS, but take a look at De La Paz, 279 sw3d 336 (CCA 2009). It might provide a pointer or two.

Castaldo v. State, 78 S.W.3d 345 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Cox v. State, 2009 WL 807491 at *4 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.] Mar 19, 2009)(not published); Lucky v. State, No. 05-02-00108-CR, 2003 WL 40670, at *5 (Tex.App.Dallas Jan.6, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("Castaldo establishes (1) that acts of third parties may reflect on the character of the appellant, and (2) if they do, they are to be excluded under rule 404(b) in the absence of any applicable exception.") (citation omitted)

Guess defense is trying to blame it on mom? Don't know if it would come in under 404b, but I can see a judge finding it relevant/admissible to advance his defense.

Regarding the apparently deleted post about attempting to blame a third party via an extraneous offense.

Before the 404(b) issue is a nexus 401 issue:

Although Gentry may attempt to establish her innocence by showing that someone else committed the crime, she still must show that the proffered evidence regarding the alleged alternative perpetrator is sufficient, on its own or in combination with other evidence in the record, to show a nexus between the crime charged and the alleged “alternative perpetrator.” Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 399, 406 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). It is not sufficient for Gentry merely to offer up unsupported speculation that another person may have committed the crime. Id. at 407. Gentry claims that the medical records that were excluded are evidence of the other two persons' motive to murder Keith, but this evidence, standing alone, is highly speculative and not sufficiently relevant to establish motive. See Casterline v. State, 736 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987, pet. ref'd). We cannot say that the court abused its discretion by concluding that the excluded evidence is not relevant to the issue of motive. See id.

Gentry v. State, 259 S.W.3d 272, 279-80 (Tex.App. -- Waco 2008, pet. ref'd)

A claim that the mother had previously been abusive looks like propensity evidence to me. The State probably could get this kind of thing in through CCP 38.36. Garcia v. State, 201 S.W.3d 695, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ("The court of appeals failed to consider that the circumstances surrounding the relationship at the time of the killing is relevant evidence under Article 38.36(a) and the car dumping incident is admissible under Rule 404(b) for the purpose of illustrating the nature of their relationship.").

Thanks for ya'lls responses. Thats exactly what I'm dealing with--an "alternative perp" defense pointing to mom trying to use a very sketchy description of a single incident of possible abuse.

(I deleted my earlier post, as well as one asking for info on the defense M.E. after some local media were contacted by an individual tring to draw some attention. See http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1463:dissecting-the-evidence&catid=30:cover-story&Itemid=375)