CROSSOVER: Article 38.371 lets in abusive-relationship and no-contact-order evidence to explain recantation in family-violence prosecution | Stowe v. State (2026)

Stowe v. State, 09-24-00282-CR, July 01, 2026.

On appeal from 221st District Court, Montgomery County, Texas

Synopsis

Section 38.371 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure permitted the State to introduce evidence of the abusive nature of the parties’ relationship, including a prior no-contact order and prior assaultive conduct, because that evidence explained the complainant’s fear, recantation, and affidavit of nonprosecution rather than merely inviting a propensity inference. On these facts, admitting the relationship evidence over a Rule 404(b) objection was not reversible error.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Stowe is a criminal appeal, family-law litigators should read it as a roadmap for getting relationship-history evidence admitted when coercion, recantation, minimization, or inconsistent statements are in play. In divorce suits, SAPCRs, protective-order proceedings, and modification litigation, the same evidentiary theory will matter when one party tries to explain why a victim resumed contact, withdrew allegations, signed favorable affidavits, or appears equivocal at trial. The case reinforces a familiar but often underdeveloped point in family litigation: prior assaultive conduct, violations of no-contact orders, and controlling behavior are frequently probative not as character evidence, but as contextual evidence bearing on credibility, fear, coercive control, and the dynamics of the relationship.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Stowe was prosecuted for assault family violence with a previous conviction. The complainant, Brandy, reported that Stowe assaulted her at or around a gas station, striking her and grabbing or strangling her. A friend who picked her up described her as distressed and “beat up,” and responding law enforcement observed injuries consistent with domestic violence, including facial swelling, neck bruising, and cuts. Brandy also reported fear of retaliation and said Stowe had strangled her multiple times in the past.

Before trial, the defense sought to limit extraneous-offense evidence. The State, however, sought to introduce evidence that Stowe had previously been subject to a court order prohibiting contact with Brandy and had violated that order. The State’s theory was that the evidence was relevant to show the nature of the relationship, not simply conformity. The trial court initially allowed evidence of the no-contact order, while excluding some references to conviction, prison, and parole terminology.

As trial developed, the evidentiary significance of the relationship history increased. The complainant had recanted, signed an affidavit of nonprosecution, and the defense pursued themes of fabrication, inconsistent reporting, and investigative weakness. The State also introduced evidence that, from jail, Stowe made extensive efforts to contact Brandy and to induce a recantation. Against that backdrop, the State urged that the prior abusive conduct and no-contact-order evidence explained Brandy’s fear, her shifting statements, and the dynamics of the relationship. The trial court agreed and permitted the State to develop that line of proof.

Issues Decided

• Whether article 38.371 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure permits evidence of a prior no-contact order and prior assaultive conduct to show the nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant in a family-violence prosecution.
• Whether admitting that evidence over a Rule 404(b) objection improperly allowed conformity or propensity reasoning.
• Whether, on the facts presented, the admission of that relationship evidence constituted reversible error.

Rules Applied

The court’s analysis centered on Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.371, which allows either party in a family-violence case to offer testimony and other evidence regarding the nature of the relationship between the actor and the alleged victim. The statute is commonly invoked to admit contextual evidence that helps the factfinder understand domestic-violence dynamics, including fear, coercion, delayed reporting, minimization, and recantation.

The court also operated within the limits imposed by Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b). Article 38.371 does not create a free-standing propensity exception. Relationship evidence remains inadmissible if offered solely to prove that the accused acted in conformity with a violent character. But where the evidence serves a noncharacter purpose—such as explaining the complainant’s conduct, fear, or recantation—it may be admissible.

The opinion also reflects the standard trial-court discretion principles governing relevance and admissibility. Once the defense theory and the complainant’s recantation put credibility and relationship dynamics at issue, the trial court had latitude to determine that the challenged evidence had legitimate probative value beyond character conformity.

Application

The Beaumont Court of Appeals treated the case as a straightforward application of article 38.371 to a common domestic-violence trial problem: the recanting complainant. The defense position was that the evidence of the no-contact order and prior assaultive acts was simply “conformity” evidence—an effort to show that because Stowe had been violent or violated orders before, he likely committed the charged assault. Standing alone, that objection had force. But the record did not leave the evidence standing alone.

What changed the analysis was the way the case unfolded. Brandy had recanted and signed an affidavit of nonprosecution. The defense cross-examination highlighted inconsistent statements and suggested fabrication or unreliability. At the same time, the State offered evidence that Stowe repeatedly contacted or attempted to contact Brandy from jail and enlisted others to pressure her toward recantation. In that setting, evidence of prior abuse and a prior no-contact order was not merely background ornamentation; it became explanatory evidence. It helped the jury understand why Brandy might fear Stowe, why she might retreat from prior accusations, and why continued contact would not necessarily undermine the State’s theory of abuse.

The trial court appears to have been careful in stages, initially limiting some of the more prejudicial labels while permitting the State to show the existence of a court-ordered no-contact restriction and the abusive nature of the relationship. As the defense pursued a credibility attack and the recantation evidence came in, the court concluded that the prior incidents had become even more probative. The appellate court accepted that reasoning, emphasizing that article 38.371 allowed the State to illuminate the relationship so long as the evidence was relevant for that purpose and not offered solely for propensity.

Holding

The court held that article 38.371 authorized admission of evidence concerning the nature of Stowe’s relationship with Brandy, including prior assaultive conduct and the existence of a no-contact order. On this record, that evidence was relevant to explain Brandy’s fear, her recantation, and the relational dynamics underlying the prosecution.

The court also held that the Rule 404(b) objection did not demonstrate reversible error because the evidence was not admitted solely as character-conformity proof. Instead, the evidence served a noncharacter purpose recognized in family-violence litigation: explaining the complainant’s behavior and giving context to the charged offense.

Finally, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that admission of the challenged relationship evidence did not require reversal on these facts.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, Stowe is useful in at least three recurring settings. First, in protective-order and post-protective-order litigation, it supports admission of prior violations, abusive episodes, and no-contact-order history to explain fear, delayed reporting, resumed contact, and inconsistent affidavits. Second, in SAPCR and modification cases, it helps frame domestic-violence evidence as context for parental decision-making, coercive control, witness credibility, and a child’s best interest rather than as naked bad-acts evidence. Third, in divorce cases involving fault, exclusive use of the residence, injunctions, or disproportionate division arguments, it provides a disciplined way to argue that prior abuse is relevant to the relational reality of the marriage and the reliability of later walk-backs.

For the proponent of the evidence, the lesson is to articulate the noncharacter purpose with precision. Do not merely say the relationship was “abusive.” Tie the evidence to a contested issue: recantation, fear, coercion, minimization, affidavit procurement, witness credibility, or explanation of continued contact. For the opponent, the lesson is equally important. A generic Rule 404(b) objection will often be insufficient if the record shows the evidence explains relationship dynamics. The better practice is to force narrowing, seek Rule 403 balancing, request limiting instructions, and object to unnecessary details that add heat without adding probative value.

In custody and divorce trials, expect Stowe to be cited when a party claims that resumed cohabitation, dropped charges, or favorable text messages disprove abuse. The answer, after Stowe, is that relationship-history evidence may be admissible precisely to explain why those apparent inconsistencies are not exculpatory at all.

Checklists

For Offering Relationship-History Evidence

• Identify the specific noncharacter purpose before trial.
• Connect each prior incident to a live issue such as fear, coercion, recantation, minimization, or inconsistent statements.
• Plead and argue article 38.371 expressly where applicable.
• Distinguish “nature of the relationship” evidence from propensity evidence.
• Use no-contact-order history to explain continued secrecy, evasion, or pressure rather than to suggest general bad character.
• Prepare a clean chronology showing how prior abuse informs current witness behavior.
• Ask for a limiting instruction that channels the factfinder’s use of the evidence to the proper purpose.

For Opposing Relationship-History Evidence

• Do not rely solely on a one-line Rule 404(b) “conformity” objection.
• Demand that the proponent identify the precise noncharacter theory of relevance.
• Request Rule 403 balancing on the record.
• Argue for exclusion of cumulative or unnecessarily inflammatory details.
• Seek redaction of labels such as parole, prison, conviction, or other status facts that add prejudice without explanatory value.
• Preserve error each time the theory of admissibility expands during trial.
• Request a limiting instruction if the evidence comes in.

For Divorce and Custody Cases Involving Recantation

• Gather affidavits of nonprosecution, recanting messages, and resumed-contact evidence early.
• Develop testimony explaining the cycle of abuse and the practical reasons victims re-engage.
• Tie prior protective-order violations to coercive-control arguments affecting conservatorship and possession.
• Use the relationship history to rebut claims that inconsistent statements equal fabrication.
• Frame the evidence around best interest, safety, credibility, and decision-making, not punishment.
• Be prepared for hearsay and character objections and have a noncharacter relevance response ready.

For Trial-Court Preservation and Record Building

• Obtain a clear ruling on each category of prior-relationship evidence.
• Clarify whether the court is admitting the evidence under article 38.371, Rule 404(b), Rule 403, or multiple theories.
• Re-urge objections when the evidence shifts from general relationship context to specific incidents.
• Offer or request limiting instructions in writing when possible.
• Make an offer of proof if the court excludes explanatory relationship evidence you need.
• Build the record showing how the opposing party put credibility, fear, or recantation in issue.

Citation

Stowe v. State, No. 09-24-00282-CR, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 1, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

Stowe can be weaponized effectively in Texas divorce and custody litigation by recasting prior family-violence evidence as contextual proof rather than character proof. If the opposing party argues that your client’s resumed contact, softening testimony, dropped police report, or favorable affidavit disproves abuse, Stowe supplies a response: the history of abuse, no-contact-order violations, and coercive conduct may itself explain those behaviors. That is especially potent in temporary-orders hearings, protective-order contests folded into divorce proceedings, and final SAPCR trials, where the abuser often tries to convert the victim’s ambivalence into a credibility attack.

Strategically, the case is strongest when you can show a narrative of pressure. Jail calls, third-party messaging, prior order violations, threats, financial dependence, or repeated reconciliations can all be organized into a coercive-control framework. In that posture, Stowe helps move the court away from the simplistic inference that “she went back, so it must not have happened.” For family lawyers, that is the real doctrinal value of the decision.

~~ab6b8919-27f6-4bd9-ba89-9dacbb05cf7c~~