to show action in conformity therewith.” Tex.R. Evid. 404(b). Courts have consistently concluded that such evidence is inherently prejudicial, tends to confuse the issues, and forces the accused to defend himself against charges not present in the case against him. Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). However, Rule 404(b) allows such evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts if the evidence has relevance apart from character conformity. See Tex.R. Evid. 404(b); Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622, 626 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). Rebuttal of a defensive theory is one of the permissi ble purposes for which evidence may be admitted under Rule 404(b). Moses, 105 S.W.3d at 626; Albrecht, 486 S.W.2d at 101; Garrett v. State, 998 S.W.2d 307, 316 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether extraneous-offense
holding that evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession where the defendant was in jail at the time the drugs were seized from his residence holding extraneous evidence that defendant was using drugs admissible under rule 404b because evidence not offered to show that defendant was drug user and was using drugs at the time of the offense but to rebut the defense of consensual sex holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold