In re Commitment of Kalati
370 S.W.3d 435
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Kalati challenged civil commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ch. 841.
- Evidence supported by expert testimony showed Kalati likely to reoffend; experts relied on records, DSM-IV, actuarial data, and interviews.
- Kalati had four prior SVP convictions involving young girls (ages 7–9) with offenses occurring over six to seven months.
- The State sought commitment after Kalati completed sentence on those offenses.
- The trial court admitted the State’s expert testimony despite defense objections about precision, and the jury found Kalati likely to reoffend; the court later noted a voir dire error that affected Kalati’s rights.
- The court ultimately reversed and remanded for a new trial due to jury selection error, while recognizing sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of behavioral abnormality proof | Kalati asserts expert testimony is conclusory and insufficient. | Kalati contends the data and testimony lack precision and reliability. | Evidence sufficient; experts' analyses supported likelihood of reoffending. |
| Voir dire error in pedophilia-related question | Kalati argues defense was improperly denied a proper commitment question. | State contends discretion to control voir dire. | Trial court abused discretion; reversed and remanded for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (concludes opinion testimony must be probative and not wholly speculative; supports admissibility framework)
- In re Commitment of Hill, 334 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. 2011) (limits on voir dire; right to bias discovery; governs proper questioning in SVP cases)
- Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. 2006) (discretion in voir dire; distinguishes case-specific inquiry from bias-related inquiry)
- In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2011) (examines foundation for expert opinions in commitment cases)
- In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2002) (flexible standard for credibility and weight of expert testimony)