in Re Commitment of George Jefferson Hatcher, 09-15-00068-CV

The State sought civil commitment of George Jefferson Hatcher as a sexually violent predator under Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 841; a jury found him to be an SVP and the trial court entered commitment.
The jury question asked: “Do you find beyond a reasonable doubt that GEORGE JEFFERSON HATCHER is a sexually violent predator?” with instructions stating a “yes” must be unanimous and that the verdict must be unanimous (all 12 jurors).
Hatcher objected, requesting an instruction that a “yes” must be unanimous but a “no” could be returned by 10 of 12 jurors (relying on Tex. R. Civ. P. 292 and precedent); the trial court overruled the objection.
The jury returned a unanimous “yes.” The trial court had previously directed a verdict that Hatcher was a repeat offender, leaving only the behavioral abnormality issue to the jury.
Expert testimony (two State experts) and Hatcher’s admissions/ testimony supported findings of pedophilic disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and risk factors for reoffense; the record was not sharply conflicting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hatcher)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the charge should have told jurors a “no” verdict need not be unanimous	Only statutory text requiring unanimity for a “yes” means statute is silent about “no”; under Rule 292 a non-unanimous “no” (10/12) is permissible and jury should be instructed accordingly	Statute implies unanimity for verdict either way; objection lacked authority and trial court correctly required unanimity	Court held error, if any, in not giving Hatcher’s phrasing was not reversible; the instruction as given (requiring unanimity) did not probably cause rendition of an improper judgment
Whether Hatcher preserved error on the jury-charge objection	Objected in open court and in writing; preserved	State argued objection lacked specificity and was waived	Court found Hatcher preserved error because he timely, plainly raised the complaint and obtained a ruling

Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (standard of review for refusal to give jury instruction is abuse of discretion)
State Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1992) (preservation of jury-charge error requires timely, plain objection and ruling)
Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump, 330 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2010) (review the entire record to determine whether charge error probably caused rendition of improper judgment)
In re Commitment of Almaguer, 117 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003) (trial court discretion in jury instructions; instruction proper if assists jury, states law accurately, and is supported by pleadings/evidence)
Toennies v. Quantum Chem. Corp., 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001) (when statute governs, charge should track statutory language closely)
Taylor v. State, 671 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983) (discussed in briefing regarding unanimity rules in similar contexts)