Considering this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it demonstrates appellant's history of becoming angry and physically violent toward Kendrick whenever he would cry, or wet or soil his pants. See Fisher, 851 S.W.2d at 304 (considering complainant's “strained relationship with appellant” prior to her disappearance in concluding that State's evidence satisfied corpus delicti of murder); Smith v. State, 968 S.W.2d 452, 462 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998), vacated & remanded on other grounds,5 S.W.3d 673, 679 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (considering appellant's “well established history” of violently assaulting complainant in concluding that State's evidence satisfied corpus delicti of murder).
Considering this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it demonstrates appellant's history of becoming angry and physically violent toward Kendrick whenever he would cry, or wet or soil his pants. See Fisher, 851 S.W.2d at 304 (considering complainant's "strained relationship with appellant" prior to her disappearance in concluding that State's evidence satisfied corpus delicti of murder); Smith v. State, 968 S.W.2d 452, 462 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998), vacated & remanded on other grounds, 5 S.W.3d 673, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (considering appellant's "well established history" of violently assaulting complainant in concluding that State's evidence satisfied corpus delicti of murder).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Smith v. State, 968 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 1992). We granted discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Article 38.36(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure abrogates the trial court's duty to comply with Rules of Criminal Evidence 404(b) and 403.
Upon a finding that a substantial right has been violated, we employ the following analysis as laid out by the San Antonio Court of Appeals: Tex. R. Evid. 103(a); Smith v. State, 968 S.W.2d 452, 460-61 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, pet. filed).King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1253, 90 L.Ed. 1557, 1572 (1946)).