in Re Commitment of Lester Winkle
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5504
Tex. App.2014Background
- Winkle petitions for civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151.
- Appeal challenges seven trial rulings arising from Winkle’s third SVP commitment trial.
- The State rested largely on the testimony of Dr. Michael Arambula; Winkle’s expert Dr. Tennison was unavailable to testify in person.
- The trial court denied a continuance and allowed prior sworn testimony of Tennison to be read to the jury; Arambula testified in person.
- The court excluded Dr. Boccaccini’s testimony; Winkle sought recusal of the judge; the court allowed cross-examination about Tennison’s satirical website; the court admitted hearsay-related material under limiting instructions.
- The trial court’s judgment committing Winkle as an SVP was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance denial and prejudice | Winkle argues denial of continuance prejudiced him by preventing in-person Tennison testimony. | State contends sworn prior Tennison testimony and rules authorized substitute testimony sufficed; no substantial prejudice shown. | Abuse of discretion not shown; continuance denial upheld. |
| Exclusion of Boccaccini testimony | Boccaccini’s actuarial testimony was essential to rebut actuarial vs. clinical risk claims. | Trial court excluded due to reliability concerns and lack of foundational evidence. | No reversible error; exclusion affirmed. |
| Recusal of judge | Judge Seiler biased; should be recused. | Assigned judge acted within discretion; no demonstrable bias requiring recusal. | Recusal denial affirmed. |
| Cross-examination about defendant's satirical website | Cross-examining Tennison about website content was improper and prejudicial. | Website content relevant to credibility and potential bias; within Rule 611(b). | Cross-examination within trial court discretion; no reversible error. |
| Disclosure of underlying facts and data (other doctors’ opinions) | Dr. Arambula impermissibly conveyed other doctors’ opinions as true findings. | Limiting instructions and Rule 705 allowances rendered the disclosure permissible for basis of opinion. | Not reversible; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Bohannan, 388 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. 2012) (actuarial tools used to evaluate risk in SVP cases)
- In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2005) (actuarial variables in risk assessment)
- In re Commitment of Polk, 187 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006) (confronts Confrontation Clause considerations in SVP civil cases)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (reliability/relevance prerequisites for expert testimony)
- In re Commitment of Tesson, 413 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013) (hearsay and expert testimony in SVP cases; balancing facts for admissibility)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (trial court discretion in handling trial conduct and evidence)
- Barbee v. In re Commitment of Barbee, 192 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006) (trial court discretion in voir dire and control of proceedings)
- In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (limiting instructions and hearsay in expert opinion use)
- In re Commitment of Hill, 334 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. 2011) (voir dire and homosexuality in SVP context)