Background
Christopher Dale Havens was convicted of third-degree-felony assault of a dating partner by impeding her breathing or blood circulation. Complainant Jeana Hicks testified that, after the couple drank and argued, Havens placed both hands around her neck and choked her until she lost consciousness. Photographs and medical records documented facial and neck injuries, and two medical providers testified that her neck swelling, bruising, and ligature marks were consistent with strangulation.
Havens denied assaulting Hicks and attributed her injuries and memory gaps to intoxication, drug use, and repeated falls. In rebuttal, the State presented Rhandi Hatfield, a later girlfriend who testified that Havens similarly choked her unconscious after an alcohol-fueled argument at the same property. The jury found Havens guilty and assessed ten years’ imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, it held that Hicks’s testimony, the injury photographs, and the medical evidence permitted a rational jury to find that Havens intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury by applying pressure to her neck and impeding her breathing or circulation. Hicks’s intoxication, memory gaps, and inconsistent statements raised credibility questions for the jury rather than rendering the evidence legally insufficient.
The court also held that admitting Hatfield’s testimony over Havens’s Rule 403 objection fell within the trial court’s discretion. The later alleged assault closely resembled the charged offense, consumed little trial time, was no more inflammatory than the charged conduct, and was important to rebut Havens’s account and the defense attack on Hicks’s credibility. Finally, the court assumed without deciding that limiting cross-examination about treating physician Dr. Kim Thuy Nguyen Onufrak’s personal domestic-violence experience was erroneous, but found no reversible harm because her testimony was cumulative of the substantially similar testimony given by nurse practitioner David Alexander Hadden, whom Havens characterized as objective.
Key Takeaways
- A complainant’s testimony that a defendant choked her unconscious, corroborated by photographs and medical findings consistent with strangulation, can support a family-violence assault conviction despite memory gaps and conflicting testimony.
- Highly similar extraneous-offense evidence may survive Rule 403 review when it rebuts a defensive theory, addresses a contested credibility issue, and does not consume disproportionate trial time or introduce more inflammatory conduct.
- Any error in restricting bias-related cross-examination was harmless because the challenged medical testimony was cumulative of materially similar testimony from another medical provider whose objectivity was not disputed.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the deference appellate courts give juries in resolving credibility disputes, particularly when a complainant’s account is supported by physical and medical evidence. Inconsistencies and intoxication ordinarily affect evidentiary weight rather than legal sufficiency.
It also provides a practical Rule 403 analysis for admitting testimony about a strikingly similar alleged domestic-violence incident to rebut the defense’s version of events, while emphasizing that restrictions on impeachment may be harmless when another unchallenged witness supplies the same substantive evidence.