in Re Commitment of Jesse Lee Davis
09-15-00266-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 8, 2016Background
- Jesse Lee Davis was civilly committed as a sexually-violent predator following a jury verdict under the Texas SVP statute.
- The State bore the burden to prove SVP status beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Davis had prior convictions for three sequential sexually-violent offenses; he did not contest repeat-offender status on appeal.
- The State’s evidence included Dr. David Self’s psychiatric evaluation diagnosing Davis with pedophilia and concluding Davis has a behavioral abnormality making reoffense likely.
- Dr. Self reviewed law-enforcement, prison, and treatment records, prior psychological evaluations (including Dr. Jason Dunham’s high-risk opinion), risk-assessment testing, depositions, and personally interviewed Davis; he considered mitigating factors (age, partial treatment) but found Davis still dangerous.
- Davis testified he could control his sexual urges and had been a model prisoner and nearly completed treatment; the jury rejected his testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency: whether evidence shows Davis lacks present ability to control sexual impulses | Davis argued evidence was insufficient to prove he currently lacks control | State argued Dr. Self’s evaluation, diagnosis, records review, and history of offenses supported findings beyond a reasonable doubt | Court held evidence legally sufficient; a rational jury could find SVP beyond reasonable doubt |
| Factual sufficiency: whether verdict is against the great weight of the evidence | Davis argued his incarcerated behavior and near-completion of treatment show no serious difficulty controlling impulses | State argued confinement limited opportunity to reoffend and expert testimony plus prior offenses supported the verdict | Court held evidence factually sufficient; verdict not so against the weight that a new trial is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullens v. State, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency in SVP cases)
- Barbee v. State, 192 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006) (credibility of confinement testimony and jury’s role in weighing witness testimony)
- Day v. State, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (standard for reviewing factual sufficiency in SVP cases)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (due process principles regarding commitment of sexually violent predators)