In Matthews v. State, 152 S.W.3d 723, (Tex. App.--Tyler 2004), appellant's defensive theory was that the allegations against him were concocted to extort the proceeds of an insurance check from him, or otherwise, as a result of lack of parental attention, anger, resentment, or general exposure to familial dysfunction. Id. The court held: Even had Appellant's cases been tried separately, it is probable that the testimony of the other victims would have been admissible to refute the defensive theory that the complainants for whatever reason, concocted the story. . . .We conclude that the trial court could have reasonably found that joinder of the cases was not unfairly prejudicial against Appellant. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in trying the cases together. Id.