A jury was sworn and opening statements were delivered in the alleged family-violence assault trial of Duron Evans. The prosecutor told jurors the state will present witnesses who say the defendant put his hands around the complainant’s neck and she could not breathe. The prosecutor framed the case as one about accountability: "By the end of this trial, it should be easy for you all to determine...he put his own hands around her neck," the prosecutor said in opening.

In opening, the defense urged the jury to focus on witness credibility and investigation gaps. The defense argued witnesses had inconsistent accounts and alleged the police department’s handling of video evidence was problematic, telling jurors the case "is a lot about credibility of the witnesses" and warning that some video evidence was missing or had been edited.

The state called Officer Janie Caballero of the Live Oak Police Department as its first witness. Caballero testified she took an initial report over the phone, wrote and submitted her report to supervisors and did not conduct further follow-up; she said her involvement ended after the initial report was forwarded to detectives. On cross-examination Caballero acknowledged she had not reviewed reports from all other investigators and did not personally view some body-worn-camera footage.

The prosecution then called Sergeant Rudy Jimenez, who worked the follow-up investigation as a detective with Live Oak at the time. Jimenez testified he reviewed the case file, spoke with witnesses (including the complainant and another witness who said they observed the incident) and concluded the available information met probable cause to file the case. He also testified he recorded his phone interview with the defendant; when asked if the recording had been altered he answered, "Not that I'm aware of." The court overruled a defense objection and allowed the state to publish the recorded interview for the jury.

Defense counsel repeatedly pressed the state on chain-of-custody and whether videos or dispatch recordings existed or had been produced. The judge limited certain lines of questioning about what the witness did or did not know about the parties’ discovery exchanges (the court sustained objections where questions assumed the witness had knowledge of defense discovery). The disputes over missing or edited recordings were preserved for the record and are a central contested issue entering evidence presentation.

What happens next: the state will proceed with witness testimony and exhibit presentation; the court permitted publication of the defendant’s recorded interview for the jury after resolving an evidentiary objection. The jury will weigh witness credibility and any admitted recordings in reaching a verdict.