With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in dispute. Appellees argued at trial that under the exception to the doctrine, the testimony was admissible. On appeal, Appellees maintain that the admission of Vega’s testimony was proper, but that if the court erred in admitting it, any error was harmless because the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment without Vega’s testimony. We agree. The general rule in Texas is that evidence of other acts by a party with persons not a party to the lawsuit are irrelevant, immaterial, unfairly prejudicial, and thus, inadmissible. See Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Vollmer, 805 S.W.2d 825, 831 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied); see also Tex.R. Evid. 403; Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Roberts, 849 S.W.2d 367, 369 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1993, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). This Court noted the exception to the

A: holding that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence there is therefore much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence the exclusionary rules aside from rules of privilege should not be applicable and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel
B: holding that hgn evidence is scientific and therefore must satisfy the pertinent delaware rules of evidence governing the admission of such evidence
C: holding that proof of a continuous chain of custody is relevant only as to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence
D: holding that the doctrine of res inter alios acta no longer exists independent of texas rules of evidence 401404 governing the admissibility of relevant and character evidence
D.