Earl David Worden v. the State of Texas, 01-23-00133-CR

Earl David Worden was convicted by a jury of sexually assaulting his daughter between ages 14 and 17; the trial court sentenced him to 20 years per an agreed punishment recommendation.
The case centered on credibility, as there was no physical evidence or eyewitness testimony regarding the abuse, which allegedly occurred in a crowded trailer home.
Worden appealed, raising eleven issues, including evidentiary errors, jury misconduct, improper judicial comment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative harm.
The appellate court reviewed evidence relating to extraneous conduct, jury dynamics, the admissibility of certain testimony, and the effectiveness of defense counsel.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in any of the challenged rulings or conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's (Worden's) Argument	Defendant's (State's) Argument	Held
Admissibility of evidence of extraneous conduct (in trailer)	Such testimony impermissibly prejudiced jury; not sufficiently similar.	Testimony was admissible to rebut the defense's lack of opportunity theory.	Admissible to rebut opportunity theory; minor error with driving lesson evidence was harmless.
Opinion testimony on complainant's credibility	Detective Reed’s opinion improperly bolstered witness and prejudiced defense.	Worden failed to object timely; opinion had little/no influence on the verdict.	Objection was untimely; even if error, it was harmless.
Denial of motion for new trial (judicial comment, jury, etc.)	Judge's "dysfunctional family" comment was prejudicial; jury was influenced.	Comment was not material nor prejudicial; jury unaffected by outside influences.	No abuse of discretion in denying new trial; comments and alleged influences were not reversible error.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Opened door to harmful evidence, failed to object to race/religion evidence.	Defense strategy was reasonable given the case's focus on credibility.	Strategy did not render assistance ineffective; isolated errors did not meet standard.
Cumulative error	Multiple errors combined deprived a fair trial.	Any errors were minor/harmless, not cumulatively prejudicial.	Cumulative harm doctrine not triggered; little or no error found.

Valadez v. State, 663 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (relevant to abuse of discretion standard for admission of evidence)
De la Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (relevant to evidentiary rulings within zone of reasonable disagreement)
Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (extraneous offense evidence may rebut fabrication defenses)
Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (extraneous offense evidence admissible to counter lack of opportunity defense)
Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (extraneous conduct admissible to rebut opportunity/impossibility theories)
Cook v. State, 665 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (non-constitutional error requires substantial and injurious effect)