in Re: The Commitment of Charles Ray Dever
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2527
Tex. App.2017Background
- State sought civil commitment of Charles Ray Dever under Texas SVP Act while he was serving concurrent 13-year sentences for aggravated sexual assault of minors.
- Jury found Dever a sexually violent predator; trial court entered final civil-commitment judgment.
- Dever challenged legal and factual sufficiency, arguing the State’s expert (Dr. David Self) relied in part on a DSM‑5 diagnosis—“other specified paraphilia, nonconsent”—that DSM‑5 does not recognize, rendering the evidence insufficient.
- Trial court had directed a verdict that Dever was a repeat sexually violent offender; appeal thus focused on whether he suffered a statutory “behavioral abnormality.”
- Dr. Self testified about multiple diagnoses (including exhibitionistic disorder, antisocial and narcissistic personality disorders) and risk factors supporting a behavioral-abnormality opinion; Dever preserved his sufficiency complaint in a motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient because State’s expert relied on a diagnosis not recognized by DSM‑5 | Dever: reliance on an unrecognized DSM‑5 diagnosis (other specified paraphilia, nonconsent) undermines proof of behavioral abnormality | State: SVP Act does not require a DSM diagnosis; expert testimony is one piece of evidence for jury to weigh | Court held evidence sufficient; SVP Act imposes no DSM‑5 requirement and unobjected-to expert testimony did not by itself defeat sufficiency |
| Whether court should impose a DSM‑5-recognition requirement when State relies on a psychiatric diagnosis | Dever: if State uses diagnosis to prove behavioral abnormality, diagnosis must be DSM‑5 recognized | State/ Court: no authority to rewrite statute to add such a requirement | Court refused to create DSM‑5 exception; would be judicially adding statutory text |
| Whether factual-sufficiency review applies and whether evidence was factually sufficient | Dever: overall evidence (including challenged diagnosis) created factual insufficiency | State: evidence including multiple diagnoses and risk-factor testimony supports finding | Court applied factual-sufficiency review and held evidence factually sufficient; no injustice requiring new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for legal sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abandonment of factual-sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Beaumont) (use of Jackson standard in SVP commitments)
- In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Beaumont) (continued application of factual-sufficiency review in SVP appeals)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (constitutional requirement that commitment reflect serious difficulty controlling behavior)
- In re Commitment of Bohannon, 388 S.W.3d 296 (Tex.) (distinguishing mental-diagnosis proof from predisposition inquiry under SVP Act)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex.) (courts must enforce statutes as written)
- In re Commitment of Browning, 113 S.W.3d 851 (Austin) (behavioral abnormality inquiry subsumes serious-volitional-control inquiry)