in Re Commitment of Carl Eugene Smith
09-15-00091-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 25, 2015Background
- The State filed a petition under the Texas Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Act to civilly commit Carl Eugene Smith; a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator and the trial court ordered commitment. Smith appealed, challenging legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence.
- Smith had convictions for indecency with a child involving a 7‑year‑old girl (1990) and two young boys (about 4 and 5); he admitted plea bargains, denied some allegations, and blamed others for false accusations.
- Smith admitted he never completed sex‑offender treatment and had multiple prison disciplinaries; he testified he drank heavily historically and used illegal drugs.
- State expert Dr. Lisa Clayton (forensic psychiatrist) diagnosed pedophilic disorder and antisocial traits, relied on records, testing (Static‑99R, PCL‑R), and interview, and concluded Smith has a behavioral abnormality making him likely to reoffend.
- Defense expert Dr. John Tennison did not find a behavioral abnormality; he emphasized a lower Static‑99 score, PCL‑R below psychopathy range, social supports, and viewed substance abuse and denial as not dispositive risk factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency: whether evidence supports finding Smith has a behavioral abnormality making him likely to engage in predatory sexual violence | State: expert testimony + convictions, records, testing, grooming, antisocial traits, lack of treatment show behavioral abnormality and high risk | Smith: State relied only on prior convictions; evidence insufficient to distinguish him from a typical criminal recidivist | Court: Overruled; viewed evidence in favor of verdict and found it legally sufficient to prove behavioral abnormality beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Factual sufficiency: whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence / results in injustice | State: the weight of expert opinion and Smith’s admissions support verdict | Smith: conflicting expert opinions and mitigating factors require new trial | Court: Overruled; after weighing evidence, no injustice requiring new trial was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (SVP commitment requires proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior)
- In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (standard for legal‑sufficiency review in SVP cases)
- In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (standard for factual‑sufficiency review in SVP cases)
- In re Commitment of Almaguer, 117 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003) (definition of behavioral abnormality and relevance of volitional/emotional capacity)
- In re Commitment of Barbee, 192 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006) (factfinder’s role in weighing testimony and drawing inferences)
- In re Commitment of Browning, 113 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (expert opinion tying behavioral abnormality to difficulty in behavior control)