in Re Commitment of Charles Philip Anderson
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 602
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Anderson challenges civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151.
- The State contends Anderson suffers a behavioral abnormality likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.
- The trial court admitted expert testimony and the jury found Anderson to be a SVP; the trial court denied relief and committed him.
- Anderson challenges several evidentiary rulings, trial commentary, and the use of a demonstrative aid.
- The Supreme Court’s Bohannon decision is discussed but this court maintains the statute’s validity and required proof.
- Anderson has a history of prior sexually violent offenses and disputes whether age, medication, and compliance affect risk; multiple experts offered competing diagnoses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove behavioral abnormality | Anderson argues no serious difficulty controlling behavior. | State argues evidence supports a predictive behavioral abnormality. | Evidence sufficient to support SVP finding. |
| Evidentiary treatment of prior offenses | Anderson argues details of prior offenses are unfairly prejudicial. | State argues testimony used to explain escalation and credibility of opinions. | Rulings upheld; not unfairly prejudicial. |
| Questioning about offense details and limiting instruction | Defense contends improper questioning and insufficient limiting instruction. | Court gave limiting instructions and allowed necessary disclosure. | No reversible error from limiting instruction or questioning. |
| Admissibility of Dr. Quijano’s suggestion of unknown offenses | Speculative and irrelevant to case. | Cross-examination capable of providing context; not reversible. | Not reversible error. |
| Bohannon impact on statutory requirements | Sections 841.002(2) and 841.003(a)(2) unconstitutional. | Bohannan did not alter proof required or render statute unconstitutional. | Statute remains valid; Bohannon not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (sufficiency review; SVP standards)
- In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (evidentiary and due process considerations in SVP cases)
- In re Commitment of Barbee, 192 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006) (jury may rely on testimony and weigh conflicts)
- In re Commitment of Almaguer, 117 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003) (serious difficulty in controlling behavior embedded in statute)
- In re Commitment of Browning, 113 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (no separate jury question for serious difficulty required)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (defining behavioral abnormality in civil commitment)