in Re Commitment of David Dodson
434 S.W.3d 742
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- David Dodson was tried in 2013 under Texas’s Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) statute; a jury found him an SVP and the trial court entered a civil commitment order.
- Dodson previously had a 2008 commitment order that required residence at a monitored transitional facility, satellite monitoring, and other restrictions; he contends these conditions resemble punishment.
- Dodson raised multiple challenges on appeal: facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the SVP statute, claims about trial procedure (opening/closing statements, expert testimony), a counterclaim seeking injunctive relief against OVSOM, and a post-trial motion to modify the commitment order.
- The trial court denied a directed verdict on his as-applied punitive claim, admitted expert testimony (Dr. Arambula) over a belated challenge, and declined to adjudicate a counterclaim against OVSOM because OVSOM was not a party.
- The appeals court reviewed preservation of error, prior Texas Supreme Court precedents, and federal SVP decisions in resolving the challenges and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dodson) | Defendant's Argument (State/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the SVP statute is punitive (facial) | Statute is punitive and thus unconstitutional | Texas Supreme Court precedent treats SVP statute as civil and remedial | Rejected; statute is civil, not punitive (follow Fisher) |
| 1a. Whether statute was punitively applied (as-applied) | Placement, monitoring, restricted residence, limited leave, and inadequate treatment amount to punishment | Restrictions serve treatment and public protection goals; not designed to punish | Rejected; evidence showed treatment and public-safety purpose; not punitive |
| 2. Vagueness of residence requirement | Language allowing residence at facility under OVSOM contract is vague and enabled prolonged confinement | Provision tracks §841.082; prior Texas appellate and Supreme Court precedent reject vagueness challenge | Rejected; claim not preserved in part; statute not unconstitutionally vague |
| 7. Retroactive application / ex post facto | Use of 1984 conviction (plea) to commit him retroactively violates constitutional prohibition | SVP statute is civil, remedial, and nonpunitive; ex post facto/retroactivity prohibition inapplicable | Rejected; civil remedial statute may be applied; plea agreement unaffected |
| 3. Counterclaim for injunctive relief against OVSOM | Trial court improperly refused to enjoin OVSOM from exercising control over him | OVSOM was not a party; governmental immunity and proper defendants differ; remedy would require separate case | Rejected; trial court correctly declined merits because proper parties were not before the court |
| 4. Opening statement excess detail | State’s opening improperly previewed detailed expert evidence | Details matched evidence later admitted; no harm shown | Rejected; even if limiting was warranted, no harm because evidence was proved |
| 6. Expert testimony reliability / conclusory | Dr. Arambula’s opinions were unreliable and conclusory; should be excluded | Objection was untimely under docket control order; testimony showed reasoned basis and methodology | Mostly rejected: untimely objection waived review; no-evidence/conclusory component reviewed and rejected—expert gave reasoned, supported opinions |
| 5. Closing argument improprieties | State’s closing misstated evidence and violated limiting instructions | State’s closing summarized evidence and responded to defense arguments; testimony supported contested details | Rejected; argument was proper summation/response and within allowable scope |
| 8. Motion to modify commitment order | Trial court abused discretion by not adding conditions (employment, treatment specifics, medical/dental care, prohibiting certain tests) | Commitment order complied with statutory mandatory provisions; additional terms not necessary; court may modify if needed but did not abuse discretion | Rejected; order complied with §841.082 and court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2005) (SVP statute deemed civil, not punitive)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (detention under SVP statute is not necessarily punishment)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (pretrial detention does not inexorably equal punitive incarceration)
- City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (standards for preserving expert reliability challenges and appellate review)
- Guerrero v. Smith, 864 S.W.2d 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (limits on detailing evidence in opening statement)