This is really a new thread about an old topic. I'm looking for common law evidentiary concepts that were obliterated when the Rules of Evidence were promulgated. Bolstering would be one (you now would make a R. 401 or 403 objection, if anything). Also, the old requirement that extraneous offenses must be similar to the charged offense to be admissible on the issue of identity has been replaced by R. 404(b), which places no limit on the admission of extraneous offenses except that they can't be used for character conformity. Can anybody think of any other common law concepts that TRAP has replaced?

Frye "general acceptance" test done away with by Rule 702. See Kelly v. State 824 S.W.2d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)

Unobjected to hearsay has probative value.

Rules of evidence don't apply to pretrial hearings.

Standard for admissibility of expert opinion.

Thanks!

Not so much smart as old. I was licensed as a lawyer just when the Rules of Evidence were passed. So, I didn't have to slog through the old case law to figure out evidence. And, our lectures in law school focused on the differences. Of course, it took appellate courts another decade to begin accepting those differences. Even now, prosecutors should look to see if the appellate court is citing a pre-Rules case.