in Re Commitment of Edward Russell Tesson
413 S.W.3d 514
Tex. App.2013Background
- Edward Russell Tesson was tried under Texas’s Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) statute and a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator; the trial court entered an order of civil commitment.
- The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is a "sexually violent predator," defined as a repeat sexually violent offender who "suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes the person likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence."
- Tesson raised 11 appellate issues: constitutional challenge to the SVP statute, voir dire limitations, admission of expert testimony and underlying hearsay/data, motions to strike State experts, legal and factual sufficiency, and the court allowing an 11‑juror verdict after one juror was excused.
- At trial, State experts (a psychologist and a psychiatrist) interviewed Tesson, reviewed records and actuarial tests, and testified that Tesson has a behavioral abnormality making him likely to reoffend. The trial court admitted experts’ underlying data with limiting instructions.
- One juror became disabled during trial; the court excused that juror and allowed the remaining eleven jurors to return a verdict over Tesson’s mistrial request.
Issues
| Issue | Tesson's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Facial constitutionality of SVP statute (due process) | Bohannan interpretation permits commitment for mere "predisposition," rendering statute facially unconstitutional | Bohannan did not reduce State’s burden; statutory elements and beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard remain intact | Court rejected challenge; statute not facially unconstitutional |
| 2. Allowing an 11‑juror verdict after excusing a disabled juror | SVP statute incorporates criminal jury rules requiring 12 jurors; verdict by fewer than 12 invalid | Tex. R. Civ. P. 292(a) permits verdict by 10+ jurors when jurors are disabled; SVP proceedings follow civil rules absent conflict | Court held Rule 292 controls; court properly allowed an 11‑juror verdict |
| 3. Voir dire restriction re: "serious difficulty controlling behavior" question | Trial court disallowed question misphrasing statutory terms and thus improperly limited voir dire | Court allowed inquiry into statutory elements and invited rephrasing; counsel failed to comply or preserve error | Court found no abuse of discretion and no preserved error |
| 4. Admission of experts’ testimony and underlying data/hearsay | Experts relied on inadmissible hearsay and untested opinions; expert testimony unreliable and conclusory | Rule 705 permits disclosure of underlying facts/data for expert opinions; trial court gave limiting instructions; experts explained bases | Court held admission within discretion; limiting instructions sufficient; experts’ opinions admissible |
| 5. Motions to strike State experts (reliability/definition application) | Experts conflated "predisposes" and "likely," or failed to apply statutory definition of "behavioral abnormality" | Experts testified they used statutory definitions and explained bases; Bohannan treats the issue as unified | Court denied motions to strike; expert testimony not shown objectively unreliable |
| 6. Legal and factual sufficiency of evidence for commitment | Evidence (experts) was incompetent, conclusory, and insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt | Record contains interviews, records, actuarial tests, convictions, and expert explanations supporting findings | Court held evidence legally and factually sufficient to support verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Bohannan, 388 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. 2012) (interpreting SVP statutory framework and issue unity)
- Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. 2006) (limits on voir dire and counsel's duty to propose alternative questions to preserve error)
- In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions in SVP cases)
- Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. 1983) (legal‑sufficiency standard)
- In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (applying beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard in SVP sufficiency review)