in Re Commitment of Eduardo H. Hernandez, 09-14-00297-CV

Background

Eduardo H. Hernandez was tried in a civil commitment proceeding under Texas’s Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) statute and found by a jury to be a sexually violent predator; the trial court entered judgment committing him.
The State proved Hernandez was a repeat sexually violent offender; the court granted a directed verdict on that element.
The central contested issues on appeal concerned (1) whether the evidence showed Hernandez suffers from a behavioral abnormality making him likely to reoffend, and (2) the admissibility/use of records and an expert’s testimony based on those records.
The State’s case relied principally on Dr. David Self, a board-certified psychiatrist who interviewed Hernandez and reviewed numerous records to form opinions on abnormality and risk.
Hernandez challenged the reliability of some underlying records Dr. Self reviewed (including a report of Hernandez using a mirror on a shopping-cart bottom to look up women’s dresses), objected to prejudicial details being told to the jury, and argued legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence.
The trial court admitted Dr. Self’s testimony (with a limiting instruction that the jury could consider the underlying facts only to evaluate the expert’s opinion); Hernandez either did not make contemporaneous Rule 403 objections to specific testimony or failed to obtain a ruling, and the appellate court found error preservation lacking for many objections.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Legal sufficiency: behavioral abnormality & likelihood to reoffend	Hernandez: expert opinions were unreliable because underlying records were unreliable; therefore no evidence supports SVP finding	State: Dr. Self interviewed Hernandez, reviewed numerous records, and explained his basis—sufficient evidence supports verdict	Court: Overrules; evidence legally sufficient—expert had a basis and jury could weigh credibility
2. Factual sufficiency	Hernandez: same grounds as legal sufficiency; verdict is against weight of evidence	State: burden beyond reasonable doubt met; risk of injustice is slight	Court: Overrules; after weighing, no miscarriage of justice—verdict factually sufficient
3. Admission of expert’s recounting of records generally	Hernandez: details of prior offenses were unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 and used for improper purposes	State: testimony was offered to show basis of expert opinion; trial court instructed jury accordingly	Court: Overrules; error not preserved—no timely specific Rule 403 rulings obtained; abuse-of-discretion standard not met
4. Admission of specific mirror-shopping-cart incident	Hernandez: incident was uncorroborated hearsay and prejudicial; lack of cross-examination made it unreliable	State: expert may disclose underlying facts he relied on; trial court gave limiting instruction; incident used to explain expert’s reasoning about subsequent conduct	Court: Overrules; testimony admitted as basis for expert opinion and appellant failed to preserve objection to its prejudicial use

Key Cases Cited

In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency in SVP cases)
Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. 1983) (appellant must show no evidence supports finding to prevail on legal-sufficiency challenge)
City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (limits on complaining about expert testimony without proper trial objection)
In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (factual-sufficiency review in SVP cases; assessing risk of injustice)
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (trial court abuses discretion when acting without rules and principles)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (standards for appellate review of trial-court discretion)
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (due-process limits on civil commitment requiring a nexus between mental abnormality and dangerousness)
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (upholding civil commitment scheme for sexually dangerous persons when statutory requirements met)