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 case data and disposition provided, the Second Court of Appeals affirmed convictions that included deadly-weapon findings tied to hands and a knife in a family-violence prosecution. The opinion excerpt provided here contains only the background facts, not the court’s analysis section, so the sufficiency holding must be described as reflected in the stated disposition and case synopsis rather than as language quoted from the excerpt itself.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, the practical significance is straightforward: assault facts involving strangulation, repeated blows, threats with a knife, forced movement, and post-assault control can materially affect protective-order litigation, temporary orders, conservatorship disputes, possession restrictions, and credibility determinations across a parallel SAPCR or divorce case. Even though this is a criminal appeal, the fact pattern described in the opinion excerpt is the kind of record that can later shape best-interest findings, supervised-access requests, and arguments about family violence under the Family Code.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The opinion excerpt states that the parties began dating in early 2023 and that the relationship became physically abusive a few months later. According to the excerpt, one early incident occurred while the couple was driving to a comedy show, when the defendant punched the complainant in the cheek.

The excerpt then describes another assault that occurred after the defendant saw a text message from the father of the complainant’s three-year-old daughter. The complainant testified that the defendant became enraged, repeatedly hit her with his fists and hands, and strangled her before hitting her again. She later called police, gave a statement, and police photographed her bruises.

The excerpt also recounts an incident at a bank, where the complainant met the defendant because she owed him money and he had her car keys. According to the excerpt, he refused to return 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.

The most detailed events in the excerpt occurred in November 2023 after the complainant sent a text saying that she did not want to continue the relationship. The excerpt states that the defendant arrived at her apartment about fifteen minutes later, approached her outside, put his arm around her, and tried to strangle her to the ground while telling her she was never going to leave him. He then forced her upstairs into the apartment.

Once inside, the excerpt states that he hit her in the face with his fist, causing her to fall to the kitchen floor; hit her multiple times, giving her a black eye; and got on top of her and repeatedly strangled her. The excerpt describes him stopping when she started turning blue and began to pass out, then resuming once she started breathing again. It further states that he later pushed her to the ground and attempted to hit her with a chair.

The excerpt then states that he grabbed a knife from the kitchen and said, “We got to go.” While wielding the knife, he told her he would hurt her if she ran, and he forced her to leave with him. The complainant believed he would stab her if she did not comply.

The excerpt continues that he drove her to a daycare to pick up her daughter and then took them to his house. Later, after seeing that she had messaged someone for help using her daughter’s tablet, he again yelled at her and assaulted her. The excerpt states that he strangled her, kicked her, and hit her in the head hard enough that she heard a loud ringing sound. After that assault, the complainant had two black eyes and could barely see.

Issues Decided

The opinion excerpt expressly states that the appellant raised three issues on appeal:

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

The excerpt also states that the court affirmed.

Rules Applied

From the opinion excerpt, the statutes expressly cited are:

• Texas Penal Code Section 22.01(b)(2)(A)
• Texas Penal Code Section 22.01(b-3)
• Texas Penal Code Section 22.02(a)(2)
• Texas Penal Code Section 22.02(b)(1)(A)

The case data supplied with the prompt also identifies Texas Penal Code Section 1.07(a)(17) as central to the deadly-weapon question. Because the excerpt provided here does not include the court’s legal analysis, it does not set out the governing rule in the court’s own words. As a general matter, Section 1.07(a)(17) defines “deadly weapon,” and Section 22.02(a)(2) addresses aggravated assault involving use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. Any more detailed statement of the court’s rule articulation would have to come from the portions of the opinion not included in the excerpt.

Application

Because the excerpt provided is limited to the background section, it does not reproduce the court’s step-by-step sufficiency analysis. Still, the affirmed disposition identified in the case data necessarily means the appellate court rejected the appellant’s sufficiency challenges and his confrontation-clause complaint.

From a practitioner’s standpoint, the factual themes reflected in the excerpt are the ones that would matter most in a deadly-weapon sufficiency fight. As to hands, the excerpt describes repeated strangulation, repeated blows, interruptions in breathing, the complainant turning blue, and near loss of consciousness. As to the knife, the excerpt describes the defendant grabbing a kitchen knife, wielding it while ordering the complainant to leave, and threatening to hurt her if she ran, with the complainant believing she would be stabbed if she did not comply. Those are the facts that appear to have framed the appellate sufficiency dispute identified in the case data, even though the court’s actual written analysis is not included in the snippet provided here.

For family lawyers, the more immediate point is evidentiary translation. Criminal records involving strangulation, threats with a blade, confinement-like movement, child-adjacent conduct, and repeated violence often become highly consequential in subsequent family-law proceedings. The same factual record can be repurposed in hearings on protective orders, exclusive use of residence, temporary conservatorship, exchanges, supervised possession, and electronic-contact restrictions.

Holding

The opinion excerpt itself states only that the court affirmed. It does not include the analysis section or the court’s holding language on each issue.

Based on the case data supplied with the prompt, the affirmed disposition reflects that the court upheld the deadly-weapon findings tied to Counts One, Three, and Four and rejected the legal-sufficiency challenge to those counts. Because that conclusion comes from the provided case synopsis and disposition rather than from the excerpted text itself, it is most accurate to describe it that way.

The same qualification applies to Count One’s serious-bodily-injury issue and the punishment-phase confrontation issue. The excerpt confirms those issues were raised and that the judgment was affirmed, but it does not provide the court’s reasoning. So the narrow supported takeaway from the excerpt is that all appellate issues were unsuccessful and the convictions were affirmed.

Practical Application

Texas family-law litigators should read this case less for doctrinal novelty and more for record-building lessons. When a related criminal matter includes allegations of strangulation, repeated blows, use of a knife to compel movement, and threats tied to attempted separation, assume those facts will influence family-court risk assessment. If you represent the protected party, obtain certified charging instruments, judgments, probable-cause affidavits where admissible and useful, photographs, medical records, 911 materials, and any testimony describing breathing restriction, loss of consciousness, visible injury, or threats with a weapon. If you represent the accused party in a parallel family case, do not minimize the criminal record; instead, address admissibility, scope, timing, temporary-safety proposals, and what relief is actually supported by competent evidence in the family court.

This kind of fact pattern also affects settlement posture. In divorce and SAPCR cases, a criminal affirmance involving family violence may alter leverage on exclusive occupancy, geographic restrictions, firearm-related provisions where appropriate, counseling provisions, and the structure of possession. Even where the family court is not deciding criminal liability, it is deciding child safety, party safety, and practical case management. Those decisions are often driven by the quality and specificity of the underlying violence evidence.

Checklists

Parallel Criminal-Family Case Intake

• Identify every pending or concluded criminal charge arising from the relationship.
• Obtain the indictment, judgment, sentence, and appellate status.
• Determine whether there are allegations of strangulation, weapon use, threats, or forced movement.
• Ask whether children were present, nearby, or directly implicated during any incident.
• Calendar bond conditions, protective orders, no-contact orders, and upcoming criminal settings.

Building the Family-Violence Record

• Collect photographs of visible injuries.
• Gather medical records, urgent-care records, EMS records, and discharge instructions if they exist.
• Obtain police reports and witness statements to the extent available and admissible.
• Preserve text messages, voicemails, app messages, and location data.
• Develop a chronology tying each violent episode to separation attempts, exchanges, or child-related events.
• Document any evidence of breathing restriction, loss of consciousness, dizziness, color change, ringing in the ears, or impaired vision.

Temporary Orders and Protective-Order Strategy

• Evaluate whether to seek a protective order, temporary restraining order, or both.
• Request specific exchange protocols if face-to-face contact presents a safety risk.
• Consider supervised possession or phased possession if the evidence supports it.
• Address exclusive use of the residence and communication limits where appropriate.
• Prepare a narrowly tailored safety plan for child exchanges, school pickup, and daycare access.

Defending the Family Case When a Criminal Record Exists

• Separate what is established by judgment from what remains disputed.
• Review admissibility issues carefully rather than assuming the entire criminal file comes in.
• Prepare a realistic temporary-safety proposal instead of relying on blanket denials.
• Address rehabilitation, compliance, counseling, or monitoring only if supported by actual facts in the record.
• Avoid positions that appear to disregard documented violence evidence.

Trial Preparation for Conservatorship and Possession

• Link the violence evidence to best-interest factors and present-risk questions.
• Use precise testimony about threats, injuries, and the effect on the child or caregiving environment.
• Distinguish between isolated impeachment facts and core safety facts.
• Prepare proposed findings and orders that translate the evidence into workable restrictions.
• Anticipate hearsay and confrontation objections in the form they arise in civil proceedings.

Citation

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

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

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