Deadly Weapon Sufficiency for Hands and Knife Assaults | Davis v. State (2025)

Davis v. State, 02-25-00209-CR, June 18, 2026.

On appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3, Tarrant County, Texas

Synopsis

Based on the court’s affirmance of the convictions and the issues raised on appeal, Davis v. State is an important sufficiency case on deadly-weapon findings in assaults involving hands used for strangulation and a knife used to compel compliance during a family-violence episode. The appeal also challenged whether the evidence supported serious bodily injury and whether punishment-phase testimony violated the Confrontation Clause; the court affirmed.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, this case matters because the underlying conduct overlaps directly with the kinds of facts that drive protective orders, temporary restraining orders, exclusive-use requests, conservatorship restrictions, supervised possession, and disproportional property or reimbursement arguments tied to family violence. When a record includes strangulation, threats, confinement, control over communication, removal from the home, or use of a weapon to force compliance, those facts are likely to have immediate consequences far beyond the criminal case, particularly in SAPCR, divorce, and post-judgment enforcement proceedings.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The respondent and the complainant began dating in early 2023. A few months into the relationship, the respondent became physically abusive and controlling. The first assault occurred while they were driving to a comedy show, when he punched her in the cheek.

A short time later, after seeing a text message concerning the complainant’s three-year-old daughter from the child’s father, the respondent became enraged, repeatedly hit her with his fists and hands, and strangled her before striking her again. She later contacted police, gave a statement, and officers photographed her bruises.

The relationship continued in some form, but the complainant repeatedly tried to end it. During one encounter at a bank, where she intended to repay money and retrieve her car keys, the respondent refused to hand over the keys, argued with her, threw the keys across the parking lot, broke her acrylic fingernail, bit her, and forced her to leave with him.

In November 2023, after the complainant again told the respondent by text that she did not want to be with him, he called her, yelled at her, and arrived at her apartment about fifteen minutes later. While she was outside in the common area, he approached her, put his arm around her, tried to strangle her to the ground, and told her she was never going to leave him. He then forced her upstairs into her apartment.

Inside the apartment, he hit her in the face with his fist, causing her to fall to the kitchen floor. He hit her multiple times, gave her a black eye, got on top of her, and repeatedly strangled her. He stopped when she started turning blue in the face and began to pass out, then resumed once she started breathing again.

He later took her tablet and phone, packed some of her clothing, told her she would not be returning to the apartment for a while, made her shower and change clothes, pushed her to the ground, and attempted to hit her with a chair. He then grabbed a knife from the kitchen, said, “We got to go,” and told her he would hurt her if she ran. She believed he would stab her if she did not go with him.

He drove her to pick up her daughter from daycare and then took them to his house. Because he had taken her phone, she could not call for help while alone in the car at the daycare. She did not try to flee because she feared he might harm her daughter or other children if he saw her attempt to escape. At his house, he bought first-aid supplies and acted as though everything was normal. After she used her daughter’s tablet to message someone for help, he saw the message, yelled at her, strangled her again, kicked her, and hit her in the head so hard that she heard a loud ringing sound. After that assault, she had two black eyes and could barely see.

The jury convicted the respondent of aggravated assault against a family member causing serious bodily injury with a deadly weapon, namely his hands; aggravated assault of a family member with a deadly weapon, namely a knife; assault of a family member by occlusion while using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, namely his hands, with a prior family-violence-assault conviction; and assault against a family member with a previous conviction. He appealed on sufficiency and Confrontation Clause grounds.

Issues Decided

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the respondent used a deadly weapon while committing the offenses charged in Counts One, Three, and Four.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that he caused serious bodily injury as alleged in Count One.
• Whether the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses by overruling hearsay objections to certain punishment-phase testimony from a police officer.

Rules Applied

The convictions referenced these Penal Code provisions:

• Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2), addressing aggravated assault involving use or exhibition of a deadly weapon.
• Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b-3), addressing assault of a family member by occlusion with use or exhibition of a deadly weapon and a prior family-violence-assault conviction.
• Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a)(1), referenced in the appeal as to serious bodily injury.
• Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(A) and § 22.02(b)(1)(A), as cited in the opinion in describing the convictions.

The appeal itself framed two core sufficiency questions that are especially relevant to family-violence litigation: whether hands used during strangulation can support a deadly-weapon finding, and whether a knife can qualify when it is wielded during the assault in a way that places the complainant in fear of being stabbed. The serious-bodily-injury challenge likewise focused on whether the injuries and their effects were sufficient for aggravated assault.

Application

The court’s affirmance shows that the record, as presented to the jury, was sufficient to withstand each of the sufficiency challenges. The factual pattern was not limited to a single strike or an isolated threat. It involved repeated assaults over time, escalating control, repeated strangulation, visible injury, impairment, threats, and the use of a knife to force the complainant to accompany the respondent.

As to the hands-based deadly-weapon findings, the evidence described repeated strangulation episodes, including one in which the complainant turned blue in the face, began to pass out, and was strangled again once she resumed breathing. In a sufficiency posture, those facts support the inference that the hands were used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The same is true of the occlusion-based count, where the conduct was not merely offensive contact but choking severe enough to interfere with breathing and consciousness.

As to the knife-based count, the evidence showed that the respondent grabbed a kitchen knife, told the complainant “We got to go,” warned that he would hurt her if she ran, and compelled her to leave with him. Her testimony that she believed he would stab her if she failed to comply supplied the immediate context for how the knife was being used or exhibited during the assault.

The serious-bodily-injury issue was presented against a record describing repeated strangulation, visible facial injuries, two black eyes, diminished vision, and other physical effects after the assaults. Because the court affirmed, the evidence was sufficient under the standard applied to Count One.

Holding

The court affirmed the judgment. On the sufficiency issues, that affirmance means the challenges to the deadly-weapon findings on Counts One, Three, and Four failed.

The court also rejected the challenge to the serious-bodily-injury finding in Count One and affirmed that conviction as entered.

Finally, the court rejected the Confrontation Clause complaint concerning certain punishment-phase testimony by a police officer and affirmed on that issue as well.

Practical Application

For family-law lawyers, the practical lesson is that strangulation evidence should never be treated as just another assault fact. In divorce and SAPCR litigation, allegations that a party placed hands around the other party’s neck, impeded breathing, caused loss of consciousness, or continued choking until the victim turned blue are the kinds of facts that can shape emergency relief, child-safety restrictions, and credibility determinations across the case.

This also matters in cases involving coercive movement or forced departure from a residence. Here, the complainant described being told she would not be returning to her apartment for a while, having her phone and tablet taken, being made to shower and change clothes, and being forced to leave while a knife was displayed and a threat was made. In family court, those facts can be highly relevant to temporary exclusive possession, injunctions against communication or approach, and whether exchanges involving children require structured safeguards.

Practitioners should also pay attention to corroboration. Photographs of bruising, testimony about discoloration, testimony about nearly passing out, evidence that the victim could barely see afterward, and proof that the responding officer documented visible injuries all matter. In a family case, the lawyer who gathers and organizes those details early will usually be better positioned on temporary orders, protective orders, and final trial themes.

Where children are present, even indirectly, the litigation consequences increase. The complainant’s fear that an attempted escape might expose her daughter or other children at the daycare to harm is the kind of contextual evidence that can bear on best-interest findings, possession conditions, and the need for protective protocols in parenting exchanges.

Checklists

Building the Family-Violence Record

• Obtain all police reports, offense reports, supplemental narratives, and 911 materials.
• Secure photographs showing bruising, facial injuries, petechiae, swelling, or other visible effects.
• Identify evidence of strangulation-specific symptoms, including trouble breathing, loss of consciousness, turning blue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, or impaired vision.
• Gather text messages, call logs, voicemail, and app-based communications showing threats, coercion, or unwanted contact.
• Document any taking of phones, tablets, keys, identification, or other items that limited the client’s ability to leave or seek help.
• Develop a chronology showing escalation, not just isolated incidents.

Proving Risk in Temporary Orders and Protective-Order Hearings

• Plead strangulation facts specifically rather than generically alleging assault.
• Highlight any threat tied to a weapon, including statements made while holding the object.
• Show whether the client was forced to accompany the other party or prevented from returning home.
• Present evidence of interference with communication, transportation, or access to children.
• Address child-safety implications directly, including exposure during exchanges, pickups, or daycare contacts.
• Request tailored relief: no-contact provisions, supervised exchanges, exclusive use of residence, and firearms-related restrictions where available.

Defending Against Underdeveloped Presentations

• Test whether the alleged conduct is tied to concrete facts about manner of use, not just labels.
• Separate visible injury from proof of impairment and duration where serious bodily injury is at issue.
• Examine whether witness testimony is specific about breathing interference, passing out, discoloration, or lingering effects.
• Evaluate whether the alleged weapon was merely present or was used or exhibited in a way that affected the complainant’s movements or decisions.
• Preserve evidentiary objections carefully, especially where punishment-phase testimony may implicate hearsay or confrontation concerns.

Coordinating Criminal and Family Proceedings

• Monitor bond conditions and protective orders for overlap with temporary family-court relief.
• Compare criminal allegations with family-court pleadings for consistency in dates, mechanisms of injury, and child involvement.
• Consider whether invoking the Fifth Amendment will affect discovery, temporary-orders testimony, or trial sequencing.
• Use authenticated criminal-case records strategically where admissible.
• Prepare clients for the timing consequences of pending criminal proceedings on mediation, custody evaluations, and final trial settings.

Citation

Davis v. State, No. 02-25-00209-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 18, 2026, mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~13fd7ed1-6aa4-402d-a6cc-6b8165ec2f2c~~