in Re Commitment of James Douglas Stewart, 09-15-00216-CV

James Douglas Stewart was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator after a jury verdict under Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 841.
Stewart appealed, raising four issues: facial constitutional challenge to the 2015 amendments to Chapter 841; legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence; and that the State lacked a good-faith basis to question him about a predicate offense.
The commitment rested on Stewart’s status as a repeat sexually violent offender and expert psychiatric testimony that he suffers a behavioral abnormality (paraphilic/exhibitionistic disorder) making him likely to reoffend predatory sexual violence.
Dr. Sheri Gaines testified she based her opinion on criminal records, victim statements, institutional disciplinary history, treatment termination, and recognized risk factors (sexual deviance, unstable lifestyle, psychopathic traits).
Stewart challenged Dr. Gaines’s diagnosis and methodology, argued lack of disclosure of the materials she relied on, and contested the State’s questioning about a 1993 attempted aggravated sexual assault.
The trial court instructed the jury limiting expert-hearsay to the basis of the expert’s opinion; Stewart preserved sufficiency issues via motion for new trial but failed to timely object to the State’s line of questioning about offense details at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stewart)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Facial constitutional challenge to 2015 Chapter 841 amendments	Amendments make commitment tantamount to punitive total confinement with criminal penalties; statute fails intent-effects test	Amendments are civil in purpose/effect; criminal penalties do not automatically render civil scheme punitive	Court affirmed statutes are civil; overruled challenge
2. Legal sufficiency of evidence for SVP finding	Dr. Gaines’s diagnosis lacks DSM–V foundation and is speculative; her opinion lacks adequate basis	Dr. Gaines used accepted methodology and sources; testimony supports behavioral abnormality and risk	Court held evidence legally sufficient; jury could find SVP beyond reasonable doubt
3. Factual sufficiency of evidence	Expert testimony was weak; verdict reflects injustice absent contrary expert testimony	Expert opinion was reasoned and supported by record; no contrary expert presented	Court held verdict factually sufficient; no new trial warranted
4. Good-faith basis for questioning about predicate offense	State lacked good-faith basis; expert’s reliance on offense details was limited to basis of opinion so State should not elicit denials	Defendant’s testimony is admissible and relevant; no timely running objection; issues waived	Court held issue waived and questions were relevant; overruled objection

In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2005) (framework for determining whether civil commitment statute is punitive)
In re Commitment of May, 500 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016) (upholding 2015 Chapter 841 amendments as civil)
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (clear proof required to overcome legislative intent that commitment statute is civil)
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (criminal penalties within a civil regulatory scheme do not necessarily render it punitive)
United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242 (1980) (deference to legislative classifications; relevancy to civil vs. punitive analysis)
Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898) (upholding regulatory qualification with penal enforcement without violating ex post facto principles)
In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (legal-sufficiency standard in SVP commitment cases)
In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (factual-sufficiency standard and expert-opinion evaluation in civil commitment)
In re Commitment of Almaguer, 117 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003) (definition and effect of behavioral abnormality on control)
In re Commitment of Kalati, 370 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2012) (application of expert testimony supporting SVP finding)