in Re Commitment of Lester G. Talley
522 S.W.3d 742
Tex. App.2017Background
- Harris County sought civil commitment of Lester G. Talley under Texas's Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Act; Talley has multiple prior convictions for aggravated sexual assault of children and other sexual offenses.
- At voir dire some venire members initially indicated they could not set aside bias about pedophilia; after the court rephrased questions most said they could follow the court's instructions. Several challenges for cause were denied; Talley used peremptory strikes and preserved error as some objectionable jurors ultimately served.
- Talley testified and denied facts underlying some convictions; the State sought to admit a prior written confession to impeach those denials and because the State's expert relied on it. The court first allowed it to refresh memory, then admitted it into evidence when Talley persisted in denial.
- The jury unanimously found Talley to be a sexually violent predator; the trial court also directed a verdict that Talley had been convicted of more than one sexually violent offense and had received a sentence for at least one.
- Talley appealed, arguing (1) erroneous denial of challenges for cause, (2) improper admission of his written confession as unduly prejudicial, and (3) improper directed verdict on his repeat-offender status. The court affirmed the trial court on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Talley’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of challenges for cause to venire members who said they would be biased by evidence of pedophilia | Those venire members were disqualified because they indicated they could not set aside bias about pedophilia | Responses were equivocal or responsive to an evidentiary hypothetical; after court clarification most said they could follow instructions | Court: No abuse of discretion; responses showed equivocation or ability to follow instructions, so denial proper |
| Admission of prior written confession | Confession was unduly prejudicial and should be excluded | Confession was admissible to impeach Talley’s trial denials and as the underlying facts relied on by State expert; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Court: No abuse of discretion; confession helped jury evaluate expert testimony and Talley placed veracity at issue |
| Directed verdict that Talley is a repeat sexually violent offender | Jury must decide all elements of SVP beyond reasonable doubt; directing verdict usurped jury fact-finding right | Talley admitted prior convictions and sentences (requests for admission, trial admissions, records), so repeat-offender status was conclusively established | Court: Directed verdict proper because repeat-offender status was conclusively established by admissions and record |
| Preservation and standard of review for jury-selection error | (Preservation addressed) Talley argued error preserved because some objectionable jurors served | State: Trial court’s voir dire rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; preservation requirements met | Court: Error preserved as to jurors who served; review for abuse of discretion affirmed trial court’s rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortez v. Huerta, 159 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. 2005) (preservation rule and standard for juror bias; review for abuse of discretion)
- Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (abuse of discretion standard for jury rulings)
- In re Commitment of Bohannan, 388 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. 2012) (only behavioral abnormality is jury fact issue in SVP proceedings)
- Bryant v. State, 187 S.W.3d 397 (Tex. Crim. App.) (stipulations/judicial admissions withdraw facts from issue)
- Qantel Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Custom Controls, 761 S.W.2d 302 (Tex. 1988) (standard for directed verdict review)