Leo Albert Sandoval v. the State of Texas, 13-20-00099-CR

On March 20, 2019, police responded to an alleged altercation at an apartment in Brownsville; appellant Leo Sandoval was present removing items.
Alleged victim Jasmine Sanchez initially told Officer Silva Sandoval grabbed her mouth, threw her down, and she banged her head; her lip appeared swollen.
At trial Sanchez recanted, testifying she had lied to get Sandoval arrested and did not recall telling police the original statements.
The State introduced Officer Silva’s body‑camera video of her initial interview with Sanchez and called a family‑violence specialist to explain why victims often recant.
A jury convicted Sandoval of assault–family violence (Class A misdemeanor); the trial court entered an affirmative family‑violence finding and sentenced him (probation, fine, costs).
On appeal Sandoval raised two issues: (1) the court erred by refusing his requested jury question specifying the mental state (intentional) for the offense/family‑violence finding; and (2) the court abused its discretion by admitting the body‑camera video as extraneous‑offense evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sandoval)	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing requested jury question asking jury to specify that offense was committed intentionally	The charged offense elements (intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly) were properly submitted; family‑violence determination is the court’s duty under art. 42.013 and is not an element the jury must decide	Family Code defines family violence as an act "intended" to result in harm; because the court made the family‑violence finding, Sandoval was entitled to a jury finding on intent (and his jury‑trial/due‑process rights were implicated)	Court affirmed: no error. The jury was properly charged on statutory assault elements; family‑violence finding is for the court, not an element for the jury.
Whether admission of Officer Silva’s body‑camera video (initial interview of Sanchez) was improper extraneous‑offense/character evidence	Video was admissible for non‑character purposes: to impeach Sanchez’s recantation and to contextualize the relationship under art. 38.371; combined with expert testimony, it explained why victim recanted	Video was inadmissible character evidence under Rule 404(b)/802 and not permitted by art. 38.371	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion. Video was admissible to rebut recantation and to show relationship context under art. 38.371; not offered for character conformity.

Butler v. State, 189 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (trial court, not jury, makes family‑violence determination under art. 42.013)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion review and "zone of reasonable disagreement" standard for evidentiary rulings)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (limits on extraneous‑offense evidence and need for limiting instructions)
Hayden v. State, 296 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (opening the door can make otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible)
Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (extraneous evidence admissible to rebut fabrication or recantation)
Boas v. State, 604 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (family‑violence finding is not an element of the offense and need not be submitted to the jury)
Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (principles on admissibility of extraneous offenses)
Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for jury‑charge instruction rulings)