CROSSOVER: Recantation Does Not Erase Dating Violence: Contemporaneous Reports and Strangulation Injuries Satisfy the Preponderance Standard

Mobley v. State, 02-25-00298-CR, October 08, 2026.

On appeal from 297th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Synopsis

A complainant’s recantation at an adjudication hearing did not negate her repeated contemporaneous reports of assault, documented injuries, or medical evidence consistent with strangulation. Because the State proved at least one violation of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial court could reject the recantation, adjudicate guilt, and revoke deferred-adjudication community supervision.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Mobley is a criminal revocation case, its evidentiary lesson applies directly to protective-order proceedings, temporary-orders hearings, SAPCRs, custody modifications, and divorces involving allegations of family or dating violence. A later recantation does not necessarily eliminate the probative force of a 911 call, repeated contemporaneous statements, responding-officer observations, photographs, medical records, and expert or treating-provider testimony. In family cases, that evidence may affect findings of family violence, protective relief, conservatorship, possession and access, geographic or safety restrictions, and the best-interest analysis.

The opinion does not create a hearsay exception or dispense with the Texas Rules of Evidence. Family-law litigators must still identify a proper basis for admitting each statement, recording, photograph, and medical record. But once competing accounts are properly before the court, Mobley reinforces the trial judge’s central role in determining credibility and deciding whether the earlier or later version is more persuasive.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Michael Mobley pleaded guilty in 2021 to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and received five years of deferred-adjudication community supervision. One condition required him to commit no new criminal offense.

In June 2025, Mobley’s girlfriend, A.Y., called 911 and reported that he had assaulted and strangled her. Responding officers observed swelling to her neck, injuries to her eye, backside, and right arm, and a missing braid. A detective testified that A.Y. described the event approximately six times and consistently reported that Mobley had strangled her.

A paramedic later treated A.Y. at the Tarrant County Jail. A.Y. complained of pain in her neck, throat, arm, and hand and again stated that her boyfriend had assaulted her. The paramedic observed neck injuries consistent with strangulation, scratches on her chest, and swelling to her arms.

At the hospital, A.Y. told Dr. Daniel Phillips that her boyfriend had struck her in the left eye, strangled her, and punched her in the abdomen. Dr. Phillips observed swelling to her neck and around her left eye and cheekbone, along with tenderness in her right chest wall. He testified that the injuries were consistent with the assault she had described.

At the adjudication hearing, however, A.Y. recanted. She testified that she had called 911 accidentally, had falsely accused Mobley, and had injured herself by falling while intoxicated. Mobley likewise denied hitting or choking her. The trial court rejected that testimony, found six alleged violations true, adjudicated Mobley guilty of the underlying aggravated assault, and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.

Issues Decided

• Whether the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mobley violated a condition of deferred-adjudication community supervision by committing a new offense under Texas Penal Code § 22.01.
• Whether A.Y.’s recantation rendered the evidence insufficient to support findings of simple assault or family-violence assault by strangulation.
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion by crediting A.Y.’s contemporaneous reports and the corroborating physical and medical evidence over her later hearing testimony.

Rules Applied

Under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1), a person commits assault by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another. Section 22.01(b)(2)(B) addresses an assault against a person with whom the accused has a qualifying family, household, or dating relationship when the assault impedes normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to the person’s throat or neck or by blocking the person’s nose or mouth.

In a revocation or adjudication proceeding, the State must prove a violation of at least one condition of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence. That standard is satisfied when the greater weight of credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant violated the condition. Bryant v. State, 391 S.W.3d 86, 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763–64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

The trial court is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight assigned to testimony. On appeal, the reviewing court examines the evidence in the light most favorable to the revocation ruling. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

A factfinder is not required to accept a witness’s later recantation. It may reject the later account and credit the witness’s earlier statements, particularly when those statements are corroborated by other evidence. See Moreno v. State, 1 S.W.3d 846, 853 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1999, pet. ref’d).

Finally, proof of a single alleged violation is sufficient to support revocation. The State was not required to sustain every allegation in its petition. See Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

Application

The Second Court of Appeals treated A.Y.’s recantation as a credibility issue rather than an automatic bar to revocation. Her testimony at the adjudication hearing conflicted with the account she gave during the 911 call, the accounts she repeatedly gave responding officers, and the statements she made to two medical providers.

Those earlier reports were not isolated or unsupported. Officers observed visible injuries soon after the incident, including neck swelling and injuries to multiple areas of A.Y.’s body. The paramedic identified neck injuries consistent with strangulation, and Dr. Phillips found swelling and tenderness consistent with A.Y.’s description of being struck, strangled, and punched. Photographs documenting the injuries were also admitted.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, the evidence permitted a reasonable belief that Mobley had caused bodily injury and had strangled a person with whom he had a dating relationship. The trial court was entitled to conclude that A.Y.’s contemporaneous statements, supported by physical and medical evidence, were more credible than her later explanation that she had fallen while intoxicated.

Because the applicable standard was a preponderance of the evidence—not proof beyond a reasonable doubt—the greater weight of the credited evidence was sufficient. And because proof of one violation would sustain revocation, the findings concerning simple assault and family-violence assault independently supported the judgment.

Holding

The court held that sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Mobley committed assault under Texas Penal Code § 22.01. A.Y.’s repeated contemporaneous reports, the officers’ observations, photographs, and medical evidence established bodily injury by a preponderance of the evidence.

The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the finding of family-violence assault by strangulation. A.Y. consistently reported that Mobley had choked or strangled her, and the observed neck swelling and medical testimony were consistent with that account.

Finally, the court held that the trial judge could reject A.Y.’s later recantation. As the sole arbiter of credibility, the trial court could accept her earlier statements as true and find her hearing testimony unpersuasive. The Second Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the adjudication and revocation judgment.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, Mobley demonstrates why a family-violence case should not be reduced to a binary contest between the parties’ testimony at the final hearing. A recantation may create a credibility dispute, but it does not necessarily erase independent and contemporaneous evidence.

In a protective-order proceeding, counsel should build the evidentiary record around the timing, consistency, and corroboration of the initial report. The 911 recording, body-camera footage, officer observations, photographs, medical records, treating-provider testimony, and communications sent near the time of the event may allow the court to evaluate the allegation even when the applicant’s hearing testimony has changed.

In a SAPCR or custody modification, the same evidence may bear on whether there is a history or pattern of family violence, whether joint managing conservatorship presumptions or restrictions apply, and what possession safeguards serve the child’s best interest. Counsel should separately analyze the precise statutory standard governing the requested relief; Mobley’s criminal revocation standard does not replace the Family Code’s requirements.

In a divorce, evidence of assault may affect protective relief, temporary exclusive possession, injunctions, conservatorship, possession and access, and potentially fault or cruelty issues. It does not automatically dictate the division of property, but properly admitted evidence of violence can materially affect the overall litigation posture and the court’s discretionary rulings.

For the party contesting an allegation, attacking only the complainant’s present position may be insufficient. Counsel must address the corroborating evidence: whether the injuries are temporally connected to the alleged event, whether medical testimony establishes consistency rather than causation, whether statements were accurately recorded, whether alternative causes are supported by evidence, and whether each item is admissible for the purpose offered.

Checklists

Preserving Contemporaneous Evidence

• Obtain the complete 911 audio, dispatch records, and call-event chronology.
• Request body-camera, dash-camera, and scene photographs promptly.
• Identify every officer, paramedic, nurse, physician, and other contemporaneous witness.
• Secure medical and emergency-service records through an appropriate authorization, subpoena, or discovery request.
• Preserve text messages, emails, photographs, videos, voicemails, and social-media communications.
• Create a timeline matching each statement to observed injuries and treatment.
• Determine whether any recording or digital evidence is subject to a short retention period.
• Preserve metadata and original file formats when authenticity may be disputed.

Preparing a Family-Violence Evidentiary Record

• Identify the precise Family Code finding required for the requested relief.
• Connect the parties’ relationship to the applicable statutory definition of family, household, or dating relationship.
• Establish when each statement was made and to whom.
• Develop evidence showing whether the witness repeated the same material account.
• Authenticate photographs and establish when they were taken.
• Distinguish a medical provider’s observations from opinions concerning causation.
• Establish the admissibility of 911 calls, medical records, business records, and prior statements.
• Prepare limiting-instruction arguments if evidence is admissible for only a particular purpose.
• Do not assume the criminal revocation standard governs the family-law proceeding.

Addressing a Recantation

• Obtain every prior recorded, written, or memorialized statement.
• Compare the recantation with the earlier accounts in a detailed chronology.
• Identify facts in the earlier statements corroborated by independent evidence.
• Determine whether the recantation offers a medically or factually supported alternative explanation.
• Prepare to address inconsistencies without relying solely on generalized propositions about recantation.
• Ask the court for express findings when they may affect conservatorship, possession, or protective relief.
• Preserve evidentiary objections and obtain rulings on excluded or admitted evidence.
• Make an offer of proof when material evidence is excluded.

Defending Against the Allegation

• Test whether each prior statement is admissible and for what purpose.
• Examine whether the witness had personal knowledge and whether the account changed materially over time.
• Investigate alternative causes for the reported injuries.
• Distinguish testimony that an injury is “consistent with” an event from testimony that the event caused the injury.
• Review medical records for timing, contrary histories, or preexisting conditions.
• Challenge gaps in authentication, chain of custody, and digital preservation.
• Address each alleged act separately rather than treating all allegations as a single event.
• Present affirmative evidence supporting any alternative account.
• Preserve legal-sufficiency, evidentiary, and due-process arguments for appeal.

Protecting the Appellate Record

• Clarify the applicable burden of proof on the record.
• Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when available and strategically appropriate.
• Secure rulings on all objections.
• Ensure admitted recordings and exhibits are included in the clerk’s record.
• Arrange for audiovisual evidence to be preserved in a reviewable format.
• Make offers of proof for excluded testimony, records, and recordings.
• Identify the precise finding challenged rather than making a global sufficiency argument.
• Analyze whether any single independently sufficient finding supports the judgment.

Citation

Mobley v. State, No. 02-25-00298-CR, slip op. (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 8, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion.

Family Law Crossover

The procedural rule illustrated by Mobley is that, under a preponderance standard, a factfinder may resolve conflicting versions of an event by crediting contemporaneous statements and corroborating evidence over later hearing testimony. A recantation creates a credibility question; it does not impose a categorical requirement that the earlier allegation be disregarded. Appellate review then generally defers to the trial court’s credibility determinations and views the evidence under the standard applicable to the underlying proceeding.

That mechanism can arise in a Texas protective-order case, temporary-orders hearing, SAPCR, or modification when a witness’s testimony differs from an earlier 911 call, police report, medical history, or recorded statement. The family court must apply the governing Family Code standard and ordinary evidentiary rules, but it may weigh properly admitted earlier statements together with physical, medical, photographic, and third-party evidence. The resulting finding may affect protective relief, conservatorship, possession and access, safety conditions, or other remedies authorized by the Family Code.

~~8b643e59-3f84-4420-8349-63b72e7cec23~~