Sugar Land, Texas — The judge in the 252nd District Court allowed two witnesses to testify about prior, uncharged encounters with the defendant, ruling their testimony admissible only to show intent, absence of mistake or lack of accident and instructing jurors to consider it only if they found the episodes proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge O'Pasquitz told jurors before the testimony: "You're about to hear testimony about other acts that are not charged in the indictment. The state is offering these for the limited purpose of showing intent, lack of accident, or absence of mistake. You may only consider them if you believe them beyond a reasonable doubt. There will also be further instructions about this issue in the court’s charge." The court said it would read fuller written instructions again with the jury charge.

That ruling came after the state told the court it planned to call two witnesses the prosecutor said would describe events the state deemed similar enough to be probative for intent. Defense counsel objected, calling such evidence propensity or character evidence and arguing it would be unfairly prejudicial.

On the stand, Tammy Kennedy Groveshow described an inner‑thigh repair visit she said left her feeling "as if I had been penetrated," telling prosecutors she had not reported the feeling at the time because she was embarrassed. Samantha Mueller, another witness called by the state, testified she was alone in an exam room for a post‑operative visit and that the defendant "put his private on my leg" and was not wearing gloves on at least one occasion; Mueller also described waking from a later hospital procedure and finding her underwear displaced.

The defense put on board‑certified plastic surgeon Dr. Peter Chang for testimony about typical practice in cosmetic surgery. Dr. Chang told the jury that methods vary and that some surgeons use instruments rather than direct touch to remove sutures. On gloves he testified there is not a single uniform practice: "Some do. Some don't," he said, adding that general‑anesthesia hospital procedures differ from office follow‑ups because hospitals provide facilities for managing complications.

During closing arguments the defense urged jurors to focus on the legal element of "penetration by insertion," highlighted the absence of Y‑STR DNA profiles on labia and vulvar swabs the defense said were negative, and argued that the initial police and nurse statements did not say the complainant was penetrated. The defense asked jurors to view the two testimonial accounts as non‑incriminating sensations or misperceptions tied to swelling and surgical positioning.

The prosecutor told jurors they could rely on the complainant’s consistency and family corroboration and argued the extraneous witnesses were offered to show the defendant’s intent and the absence of mistake. "If you believe Taylor Dempsey's testimony, that's all you need," the prosecutor said in closing.

After the judge read the full jury charge on the state’s burden and the precise statutory elements for sexual‑assault and attempted sexual‑assault, jurors were sent to the deliberation room with written instructions and verdict forms. No verdict was announced in court at the end of the day.

The record shows the state rested after the two witnesses and the defense presented Dr. Chang as an expert on standard practice for suture care and glove use. The judge limited expert testimony so the defense expert would not give opinions on the ultimate question of guilt or innocence.

The case (Cause No. 2240828) will remain pending while the jury deliberates.