Henry Lee Givens, Jr. v. State, 05-17-01123-CR

In August 2006 a 19-year-old woman was robbed at knifepoint near businesses, forced to a secluded area, kissed on neck/breast, had pants removed, was orally and vaginally penetrated twice, and the assailant took her jeans and fled. Victim reported the assault the same day, underwent a sexual-assault exam, and swabs were collected.
Police did not fully investigate at the time; in 2015 the victim’s rape kit was tested as part of an initiative and a breast swab matched Henry Lee Givens’s DNA profile (vaginal swab was not tested for semen and produced no DNA match).
Victim could not identify Givens in a photo lineup and at trial testified she did not know him; she had, however, informed her cousin, mother, police, and medical staff of the assault the same day it occurred.
Givens was tried and convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 40 years’ confinement; he appealed arguing (1) admission of a 2011 extraneous aggravated sexual-assault conviction was improper under Tex. R. Evid. 404/403, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove vaginal sexual contact as alleged.
The State introduced evidence of a 2011 aggravated sexual assault by Givens (victim forced at knifepoint, kissed on breast, oral and vaginal penetration, DNA from that vaginal swab matched Givens; Givens pleaded guilty and served 10 years) to prove identity and rebut consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Givens)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove penile/vaginal contact as alleged	Victim’s live testimony, timely outcry, and corroborative DNA (breast swab) support conviction; jury may credit victim	DNA from vaginal swab did not match; no genital trauma; thus insufficient evidence of vaginal contact	Affirmed — Victim’s detailed testimony plus timely outcry was sufficient; jury credibility determinations upheld under sufficiency review
Admissibility of 2011 extraneous offense under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b) (relevance to identity/consent)	2011 act is probative of identity and lack of consent; modus operandi and detective testimony show notable similarities	Evidence was irrelevant or premature; identity and consent were not genuinely in dispute	Affirmed — Trial record (voir dire, openings, cross, closings) put identity/consent at issue and similarities supported admissibility under 404(b)
Exclusion under Tex. R. Evid. 403 (unfair prejudice, undue delay)	Probative value on identity/consent outweighed any prejudice; jury instruction limited use; not unduly time-consuming	Unfairly prejudicial and time-consuming; State didn’t need it given DNA and victim testimony	Affirmed — No abuse of discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; jury instruction and record show no harm

Robinson v. State, 466 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility and weight)
Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse-of-discretion review for admission of extraneous-offense evidence)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App.) (extraneous misconduct admissible to rebut defensive issues negating elements)
Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App.) (modus operandi test: admissibility when extraneous acts are remarkably similar)
Page v. State, 213 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. Crim. App.) (extraneous-offense evidence need not be identical to be admissible for identity)
Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)