Family-Violence Strangulation Sufficiency | Havens v. State (2026)

Havens v. State, 13-24-00567-CR, August 20, 2026.

On appeal from 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction for family-violence assault by impeding breath or circulation under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B) where the complainant testified the defendant choked her until she lost consciousness and medical testimony documented injuries consistent with strangulation. The court treated inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, her prior drug history, and conflicting evidence about intoxication as classic credibility issues for the jury under Jackson v. Virginia, not as a basis to overturn the verdict for legal insufficiency.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, Havens matters because strangulation evidence frequently appears outside the criminal context first or later—in protective-order proceedings, SAPCRs, temporary-orders hearings, modification suits, conservatorship restrictions, supervised possession disputes, and fault-based divorce litigation. The opinion reinforces a point family lawyers already live with in trial practice: even when a complainant has credibility vulnerabilities, inconsistent recall, substance-use history, or imperfect reporting, a factfinder may still credit core testimony about assault—especially where medical records, photographs, or contemporaneous outcry evidence corroborate strangulation. That has direct implications for risk assessment, family-violence findings under Chapter 153, best-interest analysis, disproportional property arguments tied to fault, and how aggressively counsel should pursue or defend credibility attacks that may not defeat the central narrative.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The complainant, Jeana Hicks, testified that she and Christopher Havens had dated for about a year and were working together at her mother’s food truck on the night of the offense. Both had been drinking, and the evening deteriorated into argument. After leaving the food truck and going to a bar, Hicks was picked up by Havens and taken to his father’s house. According to Hicks, while the two argued in the parked car about messages on her phone to another man, Havens asked her to perform oral sex. When she refused and made a remark about “Ben,” Havens responded by choking her with both hands until she lost consciousness.

Hicks testified that she woke up in a nearby field in pain, later went inside the house seeking help, had difficulty speaking, and was then thrown back outside. She eventually reached a neighbor’s home, contacted her mother, and went to the emergency room later that day. Trial exhibits included photographs showing a black eye, facial and neck swelling, bruising to the neck, and other abrasions. Hicks admitted there were aspects of the night she could not recall clearly, including how she received some injuries, and she acknowledged prior felony methamphetamine history while denying methamphetamine use that night.

Her mother testified that Hicks was crying, reported she had been strangled, and appeared severely beaten when picked up. Medical providers testified Hicks appeared alert and oriented, did not appear intoxicated, and had findings consistent with strangulation, including neck swelling and ligature-type marks. The defense countered with testimony from Havens and his father that Hicks was intoxicated, possibly high, argumentative, and physically unstable, and that neither observed injuries when she was at the house. Havens denied assaulting her and suggested her injuries could have resulted from repeated falls.

The opinion excerpt also shows that other appellate issues involved rebuttal testimony from another alleged strangulation victim and limits on cross-examination of a treating doctor, though the sufficiency issue is the focus here.

Issues Decided

• Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove family-violence assault by impeding breath or circulation under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B).
• Whether the complainant’s testimony, combined with medical evidence consistent with strangulation, allowed a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite inconsistencies in her account.
• Whether evidence of prior drug use and conflicting testimony regarding intoxication rendered the proof legally insufficient.
• The opinion also reflects disposition of additional issues concerning admission of extraneous-offense evidence and restriction of certain cross-examination, though the principal takeaway for family-law practitioners is the sufficiency analysis.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar legal-sufficiency framework:

• Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), the reviewing court asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Texas courts presume the jury resolved conflicts in testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. See Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
• Reviewing courts may not re-weigh evidence or substitute their own credibility determinations for those of the factfinder.
• Sufficiency is measured against the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. See Curlee v. State, 620 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021); Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
• Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may suffice. See Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
• The offense at issue was assault against a family or dating partner by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding normal breathing or circulation by applying pressure to the throat or neck, or by blocking the nose or mouth, under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B).

Application

The court’s sufficiency analysis turned on the distinction between evidentiary weakness and credibility conflict. Hicks gave direct testimony that Havens choked her with both hands after an argument, that she lost consciousness, and that she later woke up injured. That testimony alone was powerful evidence of the actus reus required by § 22.01(b)(2)(B). The State did not stop there. It also presented medical testimony and records showing injuries consistent with strangulation, including neck swelling and marks characterized as ligature-related. Her mother’s testimony about the complainant’s immediate outcry and physical condition added another layer of corroboration.

The defense understandably focused on impeachment themes familiar to both criminal and family-law trial lawyers: the complainant had been drinking, had a history of methamphetamine abuse, had made prior inconsistent statements, and could not explain every injury or remember every event from the night in question. There was also testimony from the defense that she appeared intoxicated or high and may have fallen multiple times. But the court treated those points as going to weight, not legal sufficiency. In other words, they were reasons the jury might have rejected her testimony, not reasons an appellate court was permitted to reject it after the jury had already credited it.

That is the core appellate lesson. The jury was entitled to believe the complainant’s account of the choking episode while discounting or reconciling inconsistencies in peripheral details. The fact that Hicks could not reconstruct the entire evening, or that there was competing testimony about her sobriety, did not erase the evidence that directly addressed strangulation. Under the Jackson standard, once the complainant’s testimony was paired with corroborating medical proof, the conviction had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis.

Holding

The court held the evidence was legally sufficient to support Havens’s conviction for family-violence assault by impeding breath or circulation under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B). The complainant’s testimony that Havens choked her until she passed out, together with medical testimony and hospital records documenting injuries consistent with strangulation, permitted a rational jury to find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court further held that inconsistencies in the complainant’s prior statements and testimony did not render the evidence insufficient. Those discrepancies concerned credibility and weight, matters entrusted to the jury under the governing sufficiency standard.

The court likewise rejected the argument that evidence of the complainant’s prior methamphetamine conviction, substance-abuse history, and conflicting testimony regarding intoxication defeated the verdict. The jury was free to credit the medical witnesses who said she appeared alert and not intoxicated and to credit the complainant’s account of the assault despite impeachment evidence.

Practical Application

For family lawyers, Havens is a useful reminder that allegations of strangulation are uniquely consequential and often survive credibility attacks that might appear formidable on paper. In a divorce or SAPCR, if one party testifies to choking, loss of consciousness, inability to speak, or waking disoriented after an assault, and that testimony is corroborated by photographs, emergency-room records, forensic nursing notes, CT findings, or a prompt outcry to a family member, a trial court may reasonably make a family-violence finding even where the witness has memory gaps, prior substance-use issues, or inconsistent statements.

In custody litigation, that matters because strangulation allegations can drive temporary restraining orders, exclusion from the residence, supervised possession, suspension of possession, geographic restrictions, and limitations on decision-making rights. A family-law judge evaluating best interest is not required to disregard an assault narrative simply because the complaining witness drank that night or gave an imperfect initial account. Havens supports the practical view that core-event testimony may remain highly persuasive when corroborated by neutral medical evidence.

The case also has strategic significance in fault-based divorce and property division. Evidence of serious domestic violence—particularly strangulation, which courts and practitioners increasingly recognize as a high-lethality indicator—can materially affect claims for disproportionate division, reimbursement strategy, temporary support positioning, and settlement leverage. If you represent the accused spouse, Havens warns that “she was intoxicated,” “her story changed,” and “she has a drug history” are rarely complete defenses if the medical records align with the allegation. The defense has to build an affirmative evidentiary theory, not just an impeachment theory.

For protective-order practice, Havens is equally important. Although the burden differs from a criminal case, the evidentiary dynamic is often similar. A respondent’s trial strategy should anticipate that the court may credit the applicant’s account if it is supported by ER records, neck bruising, hoarseness, swallowing difficulty, petechiae, or witness testimony about immediate distress. On the applicant’s side, the lesson is to organize corroboration carefully and present the strangulation facts with clinical precision rather than generalized abuse allegations.

Checklists

Building a Strangulation-Based Family Violence Record

• Obtain all emergency-room, urgent-care, EMS, and primary-care records.
• Request radiology reports and images reflecting neck swelling, soft-tissue injury, or related findings.
• Secure photographs of neck marks, facial swelling, petechiae, abrasions, and defensive injuries.
• Identify prompt outcry witnesses, including family members, neighbors, police, and medical staff.
• Develop testimony on loss of consciousness, difficulty speaking, swallowing pain, hoarseness, dizziness, vomiting, or memory disruption.
• Tie the assault evidence specifically to family-violence findings relevant to conservatorship and possession restrictions.
• Present the timeline tightly, especially where the complainant’s memory is imperfect in collateral details.

Attacking or Defending Credibility Without Losing the Main Case

• Distinguish between inconsistencies about peripheral details and contradictions on the core assault event.
• Do not assume intoxication evidence alone will negate a strangulation claim.
• Prepare to address substance-use history directly rather than letting it dominate the narrative.
• Compare prior statements, medical histories, police bodycam, and hearing testimony for material versus immaterial discrepancies.
• Use medical testimony strategically; neutral providers often carry disproportionate weight.
• Avoid overplaying impeachment points that may irritate the factfinder if the physical evidence remains compelling.

Using Havens in SAPCR and Temporary Orders Hearings

• Cite the case for the proposition that credibility conflicts remain for the factfinder where corroborating evidence supports the assault account.
• Emphasize that medical corroboration can sustain a finding even with inconsistent recollection.
• Argue that strangulation is a severe violence marker relevant to immediate child-safety orders.
• Frame restrictions on possession as risk-management responses, not punitive measures.
• Connect the violence evidence to Family Code best-interest and family-violence provisions with precision.
• Consider requesting supervised access, exchange protocols, no-alcohol conditions, batterer’s intervention, or communication limits.

Defending the Accused Party More Effectively

• Develop a coherent alternate mechanism of injury supported by admissible evidence, not speculation.
• Preserve impeachment with records, timestamps, texts, and witness accounts rather than relying only on cross-examination tone.
• Evaluate whether medical experts can meaningfully challenge the claimed significance of the injuries.
• Separate evidence of intoxication from assumptions about fabrication.
• Prepare your client for the reality that denial alone is usually insufficient against corroborated medical proof.
• In family court, mitigate risk with practical safety proposals if outright denial is unlikely to carry the day.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Appellate Problem

• Preserve legal and factual themes in the trial court, but recognize the narrowness of legal-sufficiency review.
• Build objections and offers of proof on evidentiary issues; sufficiency attacks are rarely enough where there is direct testimony plus corroboration.
• Do not rely on appellate courts to re-weigh witness credibility.
• If representing the respondent in family court, try the case for the factfinder first and the record second.
• If representing the applicant or complaining spouse, make corroboration visible and easy to follow.
• Focus findings requests and proposed orders on specific violence facts, not conclusory labels.

Citation

Havens v. State, No. 13-24-00567-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 20, 2026, no pet.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~9fa5cfbc-d80c-4902-a4dd-f646bc7e23ac~~