State drops deadly‑weapon allegation as trial proceeds in case of 3‑month‑old who suffered brain injuries

The Criminal District Court of Jefferson County heard testimony and legal arguments Thursday in the case of the State of Texas v. Austin Robert Jones (cause number 240094), in which prosecutors allege the defendant intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caused serious bodily injury to 3‑month‑old Palmer Jones by shaking her.

Prosecutors told the court they would “abandon the deadly weapon language” in the indictment and proceed only on the allegation of causing serious bodily injury, a change the judge allowed during a pre‑trial exchange before jurors were brought into the courtroom. State's Attorney Mister Hoffpower said the office would “orally amend at this time the indictment and take out some language” and later said, “Abandon the deadly weapon language.” Defense counsel Mister Gertz reserved prior objections to the indictment and told the court he was not waiving any issues previously raised.

Why it matters: medical witnesses and family members described severe injuries that prosecutors say show abusive head trauma — injuries that left the infant seizing and required life‑flight transfer to Texas Children’s Hospital. Defense attorneys told jurors they will press alternative explanations and highlighted disagreements within medicine about whether certain injury patterns are uniquely caused by shaking.

What prosecutors say: In opening statements Assistant State's Attorney Hoffpower told the jury the evidence will show Palmer arrived at the local emergency room with severe brain injury, bleeding and rib fractures; she was transported by Life Flight to Texas Children’s Hospital and treated by pediatric specialists. Hoffpower told jurors they would see photographs, medical records and expert testimony describing subdural and subarachnoid bleeding, seizures and at least one rib fracture described as acute.

What the defense said: Defense counsel Mister Gertz told jurors they should not assume who caused the injuries and emphasized that Palmer was in the care of more than one adult before the onset of symptoms. Gertz questioned the medical literature the state will rely on — saying the term “shaken baby syndrome” has evolved into the broader medical label “abusive head trauma” and that there is scientific debate about whether the characteristic triad of findings (retinal hemorrhage, subdural hemorrhage and cerebral edema) is always pathognomonic for shaking.

Witness accounts: The court heard live testimony and recorded interviews. Carmel Armstrong, identified in court as the infant’s aunt, testified she spent the day on Feb. 17, 2022, with mother Kristen Broussard and Palmer; she said the child was normal and later that afternoon was left with Austin Jones while Broussard went to coach softball. Armstrong testified she later learned Palmer became unusually inconsolable and that she did not see anyone hurt the child.

Mother’s testimony: Kristen Broussard, the child’s mother, testified she was with Palmer earlier in the day; she said she and Armstrong went grocery shopping and that she left Palmer with Austin Jones to attend the softball practice. Broussard described arriving home after receiving a call from Jones, finding Palmer “limp” and later being told the infant had brain injury. She testified she could not recall all words exchanged in the chaos at the hospital and said she did not know what caused the injuries.

Medical evidence presented so far: Dr. Nancy Noll, Palmer’s pediatrician, testified she had seen the child for feeding and weight‑gain concerns during the newborn period and had referred Palmer for further gastroenterology evaluation before the acute event. She said she had not observed the neurologic findings that later prompted hospitalization and that she learned of the brain bleeds and fractures only after the child was transferred to the pediatric specialty center.

Emergency staff account: Cassie Thompson, a registered nurse working triage in the emergency room on the night in question, testified she saw the infant tense and rigid on arrival, observed a deviated gaze and described the child as inconsolable; she said those findings prompted urgent physician evaluation and imaging.

Evidentiary dispute and procedural notes: Prosecutors told the court they have recorded interviews relevant to testimony and said they might offer prior statements if the witness’ in‑court testimony is inconsistent. Defense counsel objected that the state must comply with the statutory predicate before using those prior statements; the judge explained the process the state must follow under rule, and ordered that a witness the state expects to recall remain available. The court also directed that certain witnesses be placed under the court’s sequestration order (the “rule”) so their testimony is not influenced by others.

Where the case stands: Trial resumed with witnesses and jurors in the courtroom after the indictment amendment; several expert witnesses remain scheduled and the court indicated further legal work on recorded interview predicate questions is required. The judge ordered key witnesses to remain available for recall and said trial will continue the next scheduled session, when medical experts and detectives will complete testimony.

What’s next: Court announced a resumption the following day with scheduled expert testimony and evidentiary rulings pending. The indictment now alleges aggravated assault by causing serious bodily injury; the court has allowed the prosecution’s narrowing of the charging language and will hear disputed statements and expert opinions during the next session.

Source material: court proceedings, sworn witness testimony, and medical records admitted into evidence in Jefferson County Criminal District Court (cause no. 240094).