A jury in the 187th District Court began hearing testimony in State of Texas v. Duran Evans on Monday as family witnesses called by the defense disputed the complainant’s description of an alleged assault after a movie.

The mother of the complaining witness, Miosha Evans, testified that she accompanied the group to see a film and that, after the screening, the complainant became agitated when she believed she had lost her phone. Miosha Evans said Duran Evans volunteered to go into the theater to look for the phone; when the two returned, she said, she never saw Evans place his hands around the complainant’s neck and would be surprised by testimony that he had. “She was definitely more aggravated,” Miosha Evans said of the complaining witness’s demeanor as they left the theater.

Defense attorneys used three family witnesses to portray the complaining witness as prone to confrontation and to remembering shared events differently than other family members. On direct and cross, sisters Isis Jefferson and Denzaley (spelled in the record) Jefferson described repeated family arguments and said the complaining witness has a reputation in the household for exaggeration or adopting a “victim mindset.” Defense counsel framed that pattern as context for the events in the theater parking area.

Prosecutors objected several times to testimony that invited hearsay or required speculation; the judge sustained many of those objections, limiting witnesses to general character descriptions rather than specific prior incidents. The state’s line of questioning focused on whether witnesses had first‑hand knowledge of the night in question; several defense witnesses acknowledged they were not inside the theater and that some information came to them after the fact.

The defense’s account and the state’s evidence will be evaluated by the jury, which the court reminded to avoid outside research or discussion during a lunch recess. The trial record shows the state has alleged contact occurred in a movie‑theater parking lot; defense witnesses who were present in the car and on the scene disputed seeing the specific neck‑grab described by the complainant and by other witnesses for the prosecution.

The presiding judge set routine jury and evidence rules; no verdict has been reached. Testimony resumed after lunch and is expected to continue with additional witnesses. The court repeatedly sustained objections where counsel asked witnesses to repeat out‑of‑court statements or recount matters the judge ruled inadmissible.