in Re Commitment of Dennis Ray Stuteville
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2243
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Dennis Ray Stuteville pleaded guilty in 2004 to five counts of indecency with a child (two by sexual contact, three by exposure); sentences ran concurrently. The State filed an SVP civil-commitment petition before his 2013 release.
- Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Lisa Clayton evaluated Stuteville, reviewed records (police reports, victim statements, penitentiary packet, prior evaluations), interviewed him, and opined to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that he suffers a behavioral abnormality (pedophilia and personality disorder) making him likely to commit predatory sexual acts.
- Dr. Clayton testified about charged offenses and numerous alleged uncharged offenses (she estimated 27–43 victims) and identified risk factors: lengthy offending history, grooming behavior, denial of wrongdoing, avoidance of treatment, victim pool including relatives, offending past age 45.
- Stuteville testified, denied the substantive allegations, admitted some neutral facts (babysitting, hot tub rule), denied being sexually attracted to children, and said he only attended SOTP when forced.
- The trial court (1) denied Stuteville’s directed verdict motion on behavioral abnormality, (2) granted the State’s directed verdict that he is a repeat sexually violent offender, (3) submitted a jury charge tracking the SVP statute (no separate instruction on "serious difficulty controlling behavior"), and (4) gave limiting hearsay instructions for expert testimony. The jury found Stuteville to be a sexually violent predator and the trial court ordered commitment (outpatient treatment plus supervision).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stuteville) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–2: Sufficiency that he has "serious difficulty controlling his behavior" | Evidence (expert + prior convictions) is insufficient legally and factually to prove current serious inability to control behavior | Expert testimony, Stuteville's convictions/records, and his denial/avoidance of treatment support inference of current serious difficulty controlling behavior | Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient; jury reasonably inferred serious difficulty from expert opinion, history, and conduct |
| 3: Refusal to give separate jury instruction on "serious difficulty" | Requested separate instruction was necessary to clarify Crane standard | Charge tracked SVP statute and statutory definitions; lack-of-control is implicitly included in the submitted issue | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion denying separate instruction |
| 4–5: Admission of evidence about uncharged offenses and details of offenses via expert | Admission of extensive uncharged-offense details was unduly prejudicial and multi-level hearsay; jury likely used them for truth | Expert may recount underlying records/data per Rule 705; details were probative to explain basis for opinion; limiting instructions were given | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed unfair prejudice and limiting instructions cure hearsay concern |
| 6: Directed verdict on "repeat sexually violent offender" issue | Granting directed verdict conflicted with SVP statute's grant of jury determination beyond a reasonable doubt and jury unanimity right | When no probative evidence raises an issue of material fact, directed verdict is appropriate under civil rules; Beaumont precedent allows it | Affirmed (following Beaumont precedent): directed verdict proper here; court bound by precedent despite concurrence's disagreement |
| 7: Trial judge comments in voir dire allegedly bolstering State expert | Comments improperly vouched for expert and commented on weight of evidence; incurable so no contemporaneous objection required | No contemporaneous objection or request for curative instruction; comments were not shown incurable | Affirmed: issue not preserved; trial court comments not shown to be incurable |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (SVP commitment requires proof of "serious difficulty in controlling [one's] behavior")
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review: evidence must permit any rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (preservation rule: contemporaneous objection and request for curative instruction required unless harm is incurable)
- In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (prohibition on judges commenting on weight of the evidence)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (presumption that jury follows trial court's instructions)