## Facts

- K.R. drove with her friend, D.R., to a Dallas house where Christopher Allen Davis lived with his roommate, Chris Norton, and Norton’s girlfriend; the house was a place where people gathered to get high.
- Davis, Norton, K.R., and D.R. smoked methamphetamine.
- Everyone except Davis also consumed gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), a drug commonly associated with drug-facilitated sexual assault.
- As the GHB effects began to wear off, Davis prepared and offered K.R. and D.R. wine coolers.
- Soon after drinking, K.R. became unable to walk and blacked out.
- K.R. later awoke in her car in a warehouse area with D.R. unconscious in the back seat.
- K.R. recalled only “flashes” of memory involving both Davis and Norton having sex with her.
- K.R. delayed reporting the assault but eventually went to the hospital for a sexual-assault examination; D.R. later obtained a separate examination.
- Toxicology evidence showed high levels of GHB in K.R.’s blood well after the earlier dose, supporting the State’s theory that she had been given a large additional dose.
- Expert testimony stated that a large dose of GHB could render a person unconscious or otherwise incapable of consenting to sex.
- Norton testified he saw Davis prepare the wine coolers and place a straw in K.R.’s drink; although Norton did not see Davis add GHB, he testified he believed Davis did so because GHB would sink and could be consumed faster through a straw.
- Norton also testified that he saw K.R. passed out and helped Davis carry her to her car.
- A jury found Davis guilty of sexual assault, and the trial court assessed life imprisonment after finding a prior felony conviction true for punishment purposes.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support Davis’s conviction for sexual assault, including proof that K.R. did not effectively consent because she was unconscious or otherwise incapable of consent.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of three extraneous offenses under Texas Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.
3. Whether testimony relating to one extraneous offense violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment and life sentence.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find that Davis sexually assaulted K.R. without effective consent due to her incapacity.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the extraneous-offense evidence for permissible non-character purposes and determining it was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- The court rejected the Confrontation Clause claim (or concluded any error did not warrant reversal).

## Legal Principles

- Legal-sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational factfinder could have found each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia governs this review.
- Sufficiency is measured against a “hypothetically correct jury charge” that accurately states the law and is authorized by the indictment.
- Under Texas law, sexual assault requires proof of penetration without consent; lack of consent includes circumstances where the complainant is unconscious or otherwise physically unable to resist, or is incapable of consenting due to the effects of substances.
- Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b) permits extraneous-acts evidence for non-character purposes such as intent, knowledge, absence of mistake, or common scheme, if relevant to an issue in dispute.
- Texas Rule of Evidence 403 allows exclusion of relevant evidence only when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice; evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and upheld if within the zone of reasonable disagreement.
- The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination; non-testimonial statements generally do not implicate the Clause, and constitutional error may be subject to harmless-error review.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed Davis’s sexual-assault conviction and life sentence, concluding that the evidence—including toxicology results, expert testimony about GHB’s incapacitating effects, and circumstantial testimony about the drinks and K.R.’s condition—supported the jury’s finding that K.R. could not effectively consent, and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting extraneous-offense evidence or in rejecting Davis’s Confrontation Clause challenge.


Davis v. State, 581 S.W.3d 885 (2019)