Charles Durgin v. State, 10-16-00154-CR

Charles Durgin was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for injuries inflicted on Kinnorise Dickerson during a fight; defendant claimed Roberta Vega (his girlfriend) may have cut Dickerson.
Evidence included a surveillance video, physical evidence (a missing paring knife), witness testimony, and police investigation by Corporal Josh Oliver.
At trial the State argued Durgin slashed Dickerson; defense argued Vega did it (possibly accidentally) while breaking up the fight.
On appeal Durgin raised a single issue: ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to (1) a police officer’s testimony about the law of parties, (2) the officer’s crime‑scene‑reconstruction opinions based on the video, and (3) portions of the State’s closing argument; he also argued cumulative error.
The appellate court reviewed the claim under the Strickland two‑prong test and noted the record is silent as to counsel’s trial strategy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to object to police testimony about law of parties	Durgin: counsel deficient for not objecting to officer’s hypothetical suggesting parties liability	State: officer correctly described legal possibility; no law‑of‑parties instruction was given and jury was told charge controlled	Overruled — no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Failure to object to police crime‑reconstruction testimony	Durgin: officer gave expert‑style opinions without qualification and based on video, not personal observation	State: officer’s opinions were permissible lay inferences from evidence he reviewed and observed; officers may testify to investigation and observations	Overruled — no error in admitting testimony; no Strickland prejudice shown
Failure to object to prosecutor’s closing argument	Durgin: counsel should have objected to portions implying Vega lied to protect Durgin and describing the injuries	State: argument was a reasonable deduction from evidence, response to defense theory, and plea for law enforcement	Overruled — argument fit permissible categories; no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Cumulative error	Durgin: combined failures produced unfair trial	State: no individual errors found, so no cumulative harm	Overruled — no cumulative prejudice established

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (appellate review of ineffective assistance claims)
Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (lay vs. expert opinion testimony by police)
Ex parte Martinez, 330 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (failure to object requires showing trial judge would have erred in overruling objection)
Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (police testimony explaining investigation and how suspect arose admissible)
Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (permissible categories of jury argument)