Bishop v. State

In Bishop v. State, 869 S.W.2d 342, 346 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), the court held testimony about the appellant's sexual practices--which included sodomy and voyeurism--should have been excluded under Rule 403. Id. at 346. The court reasoned the sexually related misconduct was inherently inflammatory because it was considered improper, immoral, and highly offensive by segments of the population. Id. A rather mild "striptease" with some sexual content in the context of a consensual adult relationship, in contrast, is not the type of "highly offensive conduct" found inherently inflammatory in Bishop.