(2) (5th Cir. 1981). While motive is not an element of any of the charged offenses here, Tucker’s testimony was relevant to help the jury understand why Appellant might have used violence against Lauren. Though Tucker’s testimony referenced specific acts of domestic violence, her testimony also revealed the impetus behind that violence: control. Sarah would ask for one punch, but would get two; Appellant would hit Sarah where she was most sensitive and in a way that would not reveal that violence; and Appellant forcibly removed Sarah from the marital residence when he did not want her there. Accordingly, Tucker’s testimony was relevant to the State addressing motive, namely, that Appellant used violence to control Lauren. Cf. United States v. Banks, 514 F3d 959, 976 (9th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). (b) The mere fact that the evidence was
holding undisclosed statement that someone other than the defendant possessed the murder weapon three weeks after the murder was not material exculpatory evidence in light of this overwhelming evidence that buehl had the murder weapon at the time of the killings and that he was the murderer holding that evidence of the defendants prior stabbing of someone who insulted his gang status was admissible to prove motive under rule 404 b in his trial for attempted murder of someone else who also insulted his gang status holding that evidence concerning the activities of a gang to which the appellant belonged was admissible under article 37073a because matters relevant to sentencing were not limited to the prior criminal record of the defendant his general reputation and his character holding that a father cannot relieve himself of his primary liability to maintain his child by entering into a contract with someone else to do so holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene