While a case is being investigated, officers go talk with suspect. He gives a statement of alibi - that he was in jail when the offense occurred. In response, officers go check his records and they show he was released before the offense was committed.

Anyone think there is a 404b problem with the State introducing that evidence at case in chief? It is not being offered to show he acted in conformity with his propensity to commit crimes, but to show that he, in fact, has no alibi for the relevant time frame. Problems?

I'd wait until he introduces the evidence of alibi somehow -- probably by crossing your officers about the statement he gave.

Evidence that a person is in jail is not evidence of an extraneous offense. Look at Laca v. State in 893 S.W.2d.

Q: Did the defendant offer any explanation regarding his whereabouts during the offense?

A: Yes, he claimed that he couldn't have done the offense because he was in jail at the time.

Q: Did you follow up on this claim?

A: Yes, we checked and he'd been released from jail prior to the offense being committed.

(Don't explain why he was in jail; don't address the content of the incarceration. You're not talking about an 'other bad act', but rather a lie told by the defendant. Although, you might err on the side of caution and 4.04b the lie. "Defendant lied to officers regarding his being in jail at the time the offense was committed.")