Jury hears recorded call, video and witness photos in aggravated-assault trial; court limits some testimony

At a hearing in the 187th District Court, prosecutors presented video, a recorded phone call and witness photographs as evidence in the aggravated-assault case against Darren Johnson. Judge Stephanie Boyd, presiding judge of the 187th District, admitted the state's recorded call and heard testimony from a San Antonio Police Department homicide detective and from a witness who photographed the victim's injuries.

The case centers on an October incident prosecutors say involved a vehicle used as a deadly weapon. Detective Dylan Myers, assigned to the homicide unit, testified that he reviewed body-worn- and other video and reclassified the original report to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The court admitted the recorded phone call the detective made to the defendant as State’s Exhibit 8.

Ina M. Clanton, the victim’s wife, testified and identified photographs of bruises, scrapes and other injuries the court received as State’s Exhibits 9–17. Judge Boyd limited parts of Clanton’s testimony, telling her she could describe observed injuries and the photographs but could not testify that the defendant caused those injuries or that the victim had “just been released from the hospital.” Judge Boyd said, “you are not allowed to testify that your husband had just been released from the hospital” and barred testimony tying the injuries directly to the defendant unless the witness had direct, admissible knowledge linking them.

Detective Myers said he conducted follow-up interviews by phone, recorded those calls and reviewed the available video; the prosecutor played the recorded call the detective made to the defendant for the court. Defense counsel objected at points during the detective’s testimony and cross-examination, and the court sustained some objections, striking portions that the court found to be argumentative or speculative.

After receiving evidence and hearing argument, the state rested. The court set a timetable for the jury: jurors were excused for the day and ordered to return the next morning at 9 a.m., when the court will read the jury charge and the parties may deliver closing arguments.

Prosecutors described the charge as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Defense counsel argued the video and statements did not support that classification. The court heard both sides and admitted the exhibits listed above; the judge also instructed counsel on the limits of permissible testimony about the cause of injuries and prior medical treatment.

The jury will reconvene for the charge and closing arguments; if the jury reaches a verdict after deliberation, the court will enter a formal judgment on that verdict.

The hearing included technical evidence review and foundational testimony; Judge Boyd emphasized evidentiary limits when witnesses relied on secondhand statements. The court’s rulings narrowed the scope of what witnesses may describe to the jury about the origin of the photographed injuries.