are excluded.” Tex. Gov’t.Code Ann. § 311.005(13) (Vernon 2005). This Court relied on § 311.005(13) in interpreting the statutory meaning of “including” in Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (plurality opinion), superseded by statute, Tex.Code CRIM. PROC. art. 37.07(3)(a) (Vernon Supp. 1994). Pursuant to § 311.005(13), we established that the list following “including” in Article 37.07(3)(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was not exclusive as to the evidence admissible at the sentencing phase of trial, as long as it was relevant to sentencing. Grunsfeld, 843 S.W.2d at 525 (explaining that the legislature’s use of the term “including” in amending Article 37.07(3)(a) rendered the list following it nonexclusive); see also Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d at 456-57 (<HOLDING>). The lower courts have also interpreted the
holding that the scope of crossexamination did not extend to any bad acts committed by the defendant during his life where defendant presented evidence of adverse circumstances that he experienced in his early childhood rather than evidence of his general good character 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 structural evidence showing the inception of the conspiracy prior to the charged activities was admissible under rule 404b 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 any relevant mitigating evidence concerning a defendants character should not be excluded