Did the trial court err when it did not perform a Rule 403 balancing test on the record?
In his second issue, appellant asserts the trial court did not perform a balancing test under Rule 403 before overruling appellant=s Rule 403 objection to the marijuana cigar evidence. There is no requirement that a trial judge must perform the Rule 403 balancing test on the record. The record does not have to include the trial court=s logic behind the balancing test it used to determine whether evidence is more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403. Howland v. State, 966 S.W.2d 98, 103 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1998), aff=d 990 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Because the trial court overruled appellant=s Rule 403 objection, it is presumed the balancing test occurred. Id. We overrule appellant=s second issue. D. Did the trial court err when it allowed the State to proceed with extraneous offense evidence without requiring the State to articulate on the record the purpose for which the State was offering the evidence?
