In Re Commitment of Day
342 S.W.3d 193
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- The State sought civil commitment of Darryl Wayne Day as a sexually violent predator under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.001-.150.
- A jury found Day suffers from a behavioral abnormality predisposing him to predatory sexual violence.
- The trial court entered judgment and ordered Day civilly committed under the Act.
- Day challenged admission of detailed records of past offenses and other acts as unduly prejudicial.
- Day argued certain disciplinary and other prison records were improperly admitted or excluded; he preserved some issues and forfeited others.
- The court upheld admission of detailed offense records and rejected challenges to exclusion/consent issues, resolving all issues in Day’s favor.
- The ultimate holding affirmed the trial court’s commitment of Day as a sexually violent predator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly admitted detailed offense records | Day contends records' details were unfairly prejudicial | State relied on expert evaluation to contextualize records | Within court’s discretion; issue overruled |
| Whether Day preserved error on disciplinary-action testimony | Error due to exclusion of minor/major infractions | No preserved error; no offer of proof | Error not preserved; issue overruled |
| Whether legally sufficient evidence supports behavioral abnormality finding | Records and expert testimony do not establish congenital/acquired condition | Experts provided valid bases and methodologies | Rational jury could find Day has behavioral abnormality; issue overruled |
| Whether factually sufficient evidence supports the finding | Evidence insufficient or improperly weighed | Brooks/Mullens standards apply; experts’ analyses credible | Evidence factually sufficient under applicable standard; issue overruled |
| Whether exclusion of Quijano’s interpretation of Health & Safety Code sections was erroneous | Statutory definitions should be explained by expert | Trial court acted within Rule 702-705; proper limits applied | No error; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2002) (test for sufficiency in SVP commitment appeals; deferential yet proper standard of review)
- Merrell v. Walmart Stores, 313 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. 2010) (expert testimony must be supported by evidence and not be speculative)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (legal sufficiency standard for criminal convictions; independent of weight of evidence)
- In re Commitment of Barbee, 192 S.W.3d 835 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2006) (application of beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in SVP commitments)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (abandoned factual-sufficiency review in criminal cases; clarified standard for sufficiency)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (reaffirms credibility and weight determinations by juries)
- Edrington v. Kiger, 4 Tex. 89 (Tex. 1849) (historic note on appellate review and jury verdicts)
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (requirements for detailing evidence when reviewing factual sufficiency)
- Dimmitt v. Robbins, 74 Tex. 441 (1889) (early articulation of appellate review of jury verdicts)