Stockton v. State, 13-24-00524-CR, June 11, 2026.
On appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County, Texas
Synopsis
Statements captured on body-camera video during an on-scene domestic-violence response were held non-testimonial because, viewed objectively, their primary purpose was to assess and respond to an ongoing emergency rather than to create evidence for trial. That meant the Confrontation Clause did not bar admission of the unavailable complainant’s statements to the responding officer and paramedic.
Relevance to Family Law
This is a criminal case, but the evidentiary logic matters in Texas family litigation wherever domestic-violence facts drive temporary orders, protective orders, conservatorship, possession restrictions, supervised access, exclusive-use claims, or disproportionate property division arguments. Family-law litigators should expect opponents to use body-cam footage, 911 calls, and on-scene medical statements as powerful corroborative evidence of family violence, and Stockton strengthens the argument that contemporaneous emergency-response statements are more reliable and more likely to come in, even when the complainant later becomes unavailable, recants, or refuses to cooperate.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Police were dispatched to an apartment complex for a “civil disturbance in progress.” When Officer Castillo arrived, he encountered the complainant, Jazmin Flores, visibly upset, crying, hyperventilating, and speaking with a raspy voice. The officer did not yet know the full scope of the disturbance, how many participants were involved, whether weapons were present, or whether a suspect remained at large. His body camera recorded his initial on-scene exchange with Flores.
Flores told Castillo that she had gone to appellant’s apartment after a breakup-related exchange, that an argument followed, and that as she tried to leave she felt hands around her neck, lost consciousness, and later came to with her child calling to her. Because strangulation was suspected, EMS was called. Flores initially declined treatment but later spoke with the paramedic in the ambulance, where additional body-camera footage captured her description of what had happened and her reported injuries.
At trial, Flores was unavailable. The State offered two body-camera videos: one of the officer’s initial on-scene questioning and one of the paramedic’s examination in the ambulance. The defense objected on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds, arguing the statements were testimonial. The trial court admitted the videos. The jury convicted on assault family violence with a prior conviction, although it did not reach a verdict on the strangulation count.
Issues Decided
- Whether the unavailable complainant’s statements to a responding police officer on body-camera footage were testimonial under the Sixth Amendment.
- Whether the unavailable complainant’s statements to a responding paramedic during the ambulance examination were testimonial under the Sixth Amendment.
- Whether the objective primary purpose of the questioning was to address an ongoing emergency or to establish past facts for later prosecution.
Rules Applied
The court applied the familiar Confrontation Clause framework from Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), under which testimonial out-of-court statements by an unavailable witness are inadmissible unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The critical inquiry, however, came from Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), and later cases refining the “primary purpose” test.
The court also relied on Texas authority, especially Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), and the nonexclusive factors used to distinguish testimonial from non-testimonial statements, including:
- Whether the situation was still unfolding.
- Whether the questions were aimed at what was happening now rather than reconstructing the past.
- Whether the primary purpose was to secure safety or render aid instead of preserving evidence.
- Whether the questioning occurred in a formal, separated setting.
- Whether the witness was giving a deliberate, step-by-step narrative.
The opinion also reflects the broader emergency-analysis from Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011), which instructs courts to assess the encounter objectively and in context, including uncertainty about danger, participants, and the need to stabilize the scene.
Application
The court treated the officer’s first contact with Flores as part of an active emergency response, not a formal evidence-gathering interview. Dispatch had reported a disturbance in progress. When Castillo arrived, he did not know whether the conflict was ongoing, whether additional participants were involved, whether anyone was armed, or whether someone dangerous remained nearby. His opening questions were framed to identify what was happening, who was involved, and whether the scene was secure. In that posture, the court concluded the exchange served immediate operational and safety functions, not merely prosecutorial ones.
The same reasoning carried into the ambulance interaction. The paramedic’s questions were asked in the course of assessing possible strangulation injuries, a context that inherently implicates urgent medical concerns. Even if some of Flores’s answers described events that had already occurred, the court emphasized that the inquiry is not whether past facts were mentioned, but whether the objective primary purpose of the exchange was emergency response. Here, medical assessment and scene stabilization predominated.
What mattered most was the overall character of the encounter. This was not station-house questioning, a signed affidavit, or a structured testimonial narrative produced after the event had fully settled. It was an unfolding domestic-violence scene, involving a visibly distressed complainant, uncertain risk, and possible strangulation—precisely the kind of setting in which officers and medics are trying to determine threat level, injury severity, and immediate next steps. On those facts, the court held the statements non-testimonial.
Holding
The court held that the complainant’s statements to the responding officer, as captured on body-camera video, were non-testimonial. Objectively viewed, the primary purpose of the questioning was to assess and respond to an ongoing emergency at a domestic-disturbance scene, not to create a substitute for in-court testimony.
The court likewise held that the complainant’s statements to the paramedic in the ambulance were non-testimonial. The medical questioning was directed toward evaluating possible strangulation injuries and addressing immediate health and safety concerns, placing the exchange outside the core concerns of the Confrontation Clause.
Because the statements were non-testimonial, the Confrontation Clause did not bar admission of the videos, and the trial court did not err in admitting them.
Practical Application
For family-law practitioners, Stockton is a reminder that the most consequential abuse evidence is often generated before litigation strategy begins. In divorce and SAPCR practice, body-camera footage, dispatch recordings, and statements made to officers, deputies, firefighters, or medics during an active domestic-disturbance response may become central proof of family violence, coercive control, or immediate child-endangerment risk. That evidence can materially affect temporary restraining orders, temporary injunctions, exclusive possession of the residence, protective orders, supervised possession, firearm restrictions, and final conservatorship findings under the Family Code.
From the petitioner’s side, Stockton supports framing these statements as contemporaneous safety-response evidence rather than retrospective accusation. The closer the statement is to an active scene, visible distress, uncertain danger, or medical triage, the stronger the argument that the statement bears heightened reliability and should be given substantial weight in temporary-orders hearings and final trial settings.
From the respondent’s side, Stockton narrows but does not eliminate attack points. Counsel should focus less on abstract “testimonial” objections in civil proceedings and more on foundation, authentication, completeness, hearsay exceptions, Rule 403, inconsistencies between body-cam content and later affidavits, absence of observable injury, and whether the emergency had in fact dissipated before the key statements were made. In custody litigation especially, the strategic fight will often be about weight rather than admissibility.
Family lawyers should also recognize the property-case implications. Where one spouse seeks a disproportionate division based on cruel treatment or family violence, body-cam and medical-response evidence may provide persuasive, near-real-time corroboration that is far more compelling than after-the-fact testimony alone. The same is true when one party claims waste, lockout, exclusive occupancy, or emergency relocation was justified by violence in the home.
Checklists
Using Body-Cam Evidence in a Custody or Divorce Case
- Obtain the 911 audio, CAD logs, incident report, offense report, body-cam footage, dash-cam footage, and EMS records immediately.
- Pin down timing: dispatch time, officer arrival, first contact, medical contact, and any separation of parties.
- Emphasize scene conditions showing an ongoing emergency: distress, crying, breathing issues, visible marks, presence of children, uncertain suspect location, or possible weapons.
- Tie the evidence to Family Code issues: family violence history, best interest, child safety, supervised access, and exclusive use of the residence.
- Use the video to corroborate affidavit testimony at temporary-orders hearings.
- Compare the recorded statements to later recantations and be prepared to explain why recantation is common in domestic-violence cases.
- Preserve authentication witnesses or certifications for the recordings and records.
- Request complete footage, not just excerpts, to avoid misleading-context objections.
Defending Against Emergency-Scene Statements
- Determine whether the emergency had ended before the key statements were made.
- Examine whether the questioning became structured, investigative, or step-by-step after the scene was secure.
- Highlight lack of visible injury, conflicting witness accounts, or medical observations inconsistent with the accusation.
- Challenge gaps in chain of custody, authentication, or selective editing.
- Demand full footage to identify omitted context favorable to your client.
- Argue Rule 403 if the video is cumulative, emotionally inflammatory, or only marginally probative on the disputed issue.
- Distinguish statements made for medical triage from later statements arguably aimed at criminal prosecution or litigation positioning.
- Prepare impeachment from texts, prior reports, social-media posts, or prior inconsistent descriptions of the event.
Building the Record for Temporary Orders
- Offer timestamps and sequence evidence to show immediacy.
- Connect the emergency-response statements to current relief requested, not just past misconduct.
- Show how the incident affects present child safety, exchanges, residence access, or communication restrictions.
- Use witnesses who observed demeanor: officer, paramedic, neighbor, relative, or responding supervisor.
- Establish whether children were present, heard the event, or were exposed to violence aftermath.
- Ask for specific findings on family violence and risk, not just general “best interest” rulings.
- If seeking possession restrictions, propose detailed mechanisms: supervised visitation, neutral exchange, no overnight possession, substance testing, or counseling conditions.
Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Mistakes
- Do not rely solely on a blanket confrontation-style objection in a civil family setting.
- Do not ignore the importance of the “ongoing emergency” framing; meet it head-on with facts.
- Do not wait until trial to secure full underlying recordings and dispatch materials.
- Do not assume unavailability or recantation will neutralize early statements.
- Do not overlook medical-response evidence merely because the provider found limited objective injury.
- Do not treat body-cam footage as self-explanatory; develop a narrative for why the exchange was or was not primarily emergency-driven.
- Do not separate admissibility strategy from conservatorship and possession strategy; the evidence will usually affect both.
Citation
Stockton v. State, No. 13-24-00524-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 11, 2026, no pet.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
Stockton can be weaponized in Texas divorce and custody litigation by recasting police-response materials as contemporaneous safety evidence rather than mere out-of-court accusation. If you represent the spouse or parent alleging abuse, the case supports using body-cam video, on-scene statements, and EMS interactions to argue that the earliest statements were made under emergency conditions, before litigation incentives hardened, and therefore deserve substantial weight in deciding temporary conservatorship, supervised possession, exclusive occupancy, and protective relief. If you represent the accused spouse or parent, the counter is to fracture the “ongoing emergency” narrative: show the scene was secure, the parties were separated, the questions had become retrospective and investigative, the medical findings did not match the allegations, and the footage is being overread for propositions it does not actually prove.
~~73179944-cb60-41e9-8158-2d4e0e11f364~~
Share this content: