Otis Odell Chaney v. State, 06-16-00084-CR

In 2004 Chaney confessed (audio/video) to a sexual relationship with his then‑girlfriend’s 13‑year‑old daughter, Alice; he was convicted and later married Alice after release.
In 2015 Heather (Alice’s 14‑year‑old half‑sister) moved in with Chaney and Alice and later outcried sexual assault by Chaney.
Heather testified she had sexual intercourse with Chaney beginning in November 2014 (described penetration by his private part).
Corroborating witnesses (Heather’s friend Victoria and Heather’s mother Emily) testified about Heather’s disclosures; other witnesses and documents showed Chaney’s earlier 2004 confession and conviction.
Jury convicted Chaney of sexual assault of a child (Tex. Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2)(A)); trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
On appeal Chaney challenged (1) legal sufficiency of the evidence and (2) admission of his 2004 recorded confession under Rule 403 and cumulative‑evidence grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Chaney)	Held
1. Legal sufficiency to prove sexual‑assault of Heather (date/penetration)	Evidence (Heather’s testimony, corroboration) supports jury finding of intentional/ knowing penile‑vaginal penetration within indictment’s “on or about” period	Insufficient: Heather testified to November 2014, not the indictment date (March 1, 2015); state failed to prove penetration on or about alleged date	Held: Evidence legally sufficient; “on or about” language permits proof of date within limitations and jury could reasonably find penetration as alleged
2. Admissibility of 2004 recorded confession (Rule 403 / cumulative)	Admission proper under Art. 38.37 (extraneous offenses in child sexual‑abuse cases); probative value outweighed prejudice balance satisfied	Recording prejudicial and cumulative; Rule 403 objection to admission preserved	Held: Error waived — substance of the recorded confession was introduced elsewhere without objection (state witnesses and defense elicitation), so objections forfeited

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for legal‑sufficiency review and deference to jury factfinding)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (due‑process sufficiency standard)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge test for sufficiency)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (jury responsibility to resolve conflicts and draw inferences)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury’s resolution of factual disputes)
Sledge v. State, 953 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ("on or about" indictment date rule)
Scoggan v. State, 799 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (same principle on date variance)
Halbrook v. State, 322 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010) (a child victim’s testimony alone can support conviction)
Long v. State, 10 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (must object each time inadmissible evidence offered to preserve error)
Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (same preservation rule)
Fennell v. State, 460 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (objection waived when defendant elicits or introduces same evidence)