Bobby Allen Russell v. State, 06-16-00191-CR

Defendant Bobby Allen Russell was convicted by a Gregg County jury of continuous family-violence (Tex. Penal Code §25.11) based on assaults on Wendy Carter on May 25, 2015 and July 9, 2015; sentence: 5 years + $5,000 fine.
Allegations included causing bodily injury by striking and pushing and by impeding breathing/circulation (pressure to throat/blocking nose or mouth); the indictment was amended after a pretrial joinder/quash dispute.
Victim Wendy testified to choking/unconsciousness, a broken arm, concussion, and bruises; other witnesses corroborated yelling, intoxication, and subsequent bruising and visits to the home.
Russell moved to quash the amended indictment, arguing the “impeding breathing/circulation” language was outside the assault definition relied on for continuous-family-violence; the trial court denied the motion.
The State proffered expert Lyndell McAllister (family-violence dynamics) to explain victim behavior (recantation, delay, continued cohabitation); Russell objected under Tex. R. Evid. 403 as unfairly prejudicial/bolstering; the trial court admitted the testimony after voir dire.
On appeal Russell argued (1) indictment defect and (2) Rule 403 exclusion of expert testimony; the court affirmed, holding the indictment language fell within §22.01(a)(1) (as qualified by (b)(2)(B)) and the expert testimony was admissible and not unfairly prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Russell)	Held
Sufficiency of indictment language for continuous family violence	Indictment alleging bodily injury and impeding breathing falls within §22.01(a)(1) as qualified by (b)(2)(B) and supports continuous-violence charge	"Impeding" language reflects §22.01(b)(2)(B) assault outside §22.01(a)(1) scope required for continuous-violence predicate	Affirmed: (b)(2)(B) conduct is an assault under (a)(1); indictment sufficient
Admissibility of expert testimony on family-violence dynamics (Rule 403)	Testimony is highly probative to explain victim behavior (delay, recantation, continued contact); jurors lack background knowledge; not unduly prejudicial	Testimony was improper bolstering, case-specific and likely to lead jury to infer other bad acts or convict for general abusive character	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion under Gigliobianco balancing; expert testimony admissible and not unfairly prejudicial

State v. Barbernell, 257 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for reviewing motion to quash)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Rule 403 balancing framework)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for expert admissibility)
Duckett v. State, 797 S.W.2d 906 (Tex. Crim. App.) (permitting expert testimony to explain victim behavior)
Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Rule 403 excludes only unfairly prejudicial evidence)