Background
Michael Wayne Stowe was convicted of assault causing bodily injury to a family member with a prior conviction on January 19, 2023. The victim, Brandy, reported that Stowe struck her in the face while she was driving, then continued the assault at a gas station where he grabbed her by the neck and threatened to kill her and her daughter. The indictment included a prior conviction for assault causing bodily injury to a family member.
After her initial police report, Brandy signed an affidavit of nonprosecution. The record showed Stowe made 1,935 phone calls to Brandy while in jail, completing 631 calls, attempting to persuade her to sign the affidavit and recant. At trial, Brandy testified that she was coerced through threats and manipulation. The prosecution introduced evidence of prior domestic violence incidents between Stowe and Brandy, including violations of protective orders in 2020 and 2021 and a strangulation charge, to show the abusive nature of their relationship and explain her initial reluctance to cooperate.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Stowe’s claim that the trial court erred in admitting extraneous-offense evidence. The appellate court held that under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.371(b), evidence of prior domestic violence incidents between the accused and the victim is admissible in family violence prosecutions to show “the nature of the relationship”—a purpose distinct from proving character conformity prohibited by Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b). The prior incidents were probative because they demonstrated the abusive, volatile history and explained why Brandy was afraid to cooperate with authorities and initially sought to have charges dismissed.
The court also upheld testimony from Detective Vargas that he contacted Stowe’s parole officer to locate Stowe. Stowe argued this was inadmissible extraneous-offense evidence. The court held the testimony was admissible as rebuttal to the defense theory that the investigation was inadequate, and that defense counsel had “opened the door” by cross-examining Vargas about whether he contacted Stowe directly. Finally, the court rejected Stowe’s Rule 403 argument (probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice) because Stowe failed to make that objection at trial, thus waiving it for appeal.
Key Takeaways
- In family violence prosecutions, prior domestic violence incidents between the same accused and victim are admissible under Article 38.371(b) to establish the nature of the relationship, even if they would otherwise be barred as character evidence under Rule 404(b).
- Evidence of the abusive relationship is probative of why a victim may recant, refuse to cooperate, or display fear and reluctance to testify.
- Defense cross-examination that opens the door to rebuttal evidence—such as questioning the adequacy of an investigation—permits the prosecution to introduce otherwise-inadmissible extraneous-offense evidence to rebut that theory.
- Trial objections are prerequisite to appellate review; failure to object under Rule 403 waives that argument on appeal.
Why It Matters
This ruling clarifies that in family violence cases, Texas courts recognize a statutory exception to the character-evidence rule that permits prosecutors to introduce prior incidents between the defendant and victim. This is especially significant given patterns of domestic abuse, where victims frequently recant or refuse to testify due to fear, economic dependence, or ongoing coercion. The court’s decision acknowledges these dynamics and allows juries to understand the context of an abusive relationship—including the controlling behavior evidenced by Stowe’s hundreds of jail calls attempting to secure Brandy’s affidavit of nonprosecution—without relying on impermissible character reasoning.
The ruling also reinforces that the “open door” doctrine applies to extraneous-offense evidence: when a defendant’s cross-examination suggests investigative deficiency, prosecutors may respond with evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible. Defense counsel must therefore carefully consider whether challenging the investigation’s scope invites rebuttal evidence about parole status or other extraneous matters.