562 S.W.3d 665
Tex. App.2018Background
- Maurice Bluitt, previously convicted of sexual offenses in Texas, was incarcerated in Colorado when Texas filed a petition (Mar. 31, 2016) to civilly commit him as a sexually violent predator under Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 841.
- Bluitt remained in Colorado custody throughout the proceedings after TDCJ released him on parole and Colorado later revoked his probation; Texas sought to try the civil-commitment case within the statutory 270-day window.
- The trial court denied the State’s motion to abate and, after unsuccessful efforts to secure Bluitt’s physical transport from Colorado, authorized his participation by videoconference; Bluitt refused to appear by video and insisted on an in-person presence.
- The trial proceeded without Bluitt physically present; voir dire included a court remark that Bluitt had “chosen not to participate,” and several venirepersons expressed bias tied to his absence.
- The jury found Bluitt a sexually violent predator; the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed, holding chapter 841 guarantees a right to be physically present at the initial civil-commitment trial and that Bluitt’s absence was harmful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bluitt) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chapter 841 guarantees a right to be physically present at the initial civil-commitment trial | "Right to appear at the trial" means the person must be physically present | "Right to appear" does not require physical presence; videoconferencing suffices; person can appear via counsel or pleadings | Court held the statute guarantees a physical right to be present at the initial trial; reversed judgment |
| Whether videoconferencing satisfied statutory/presumptive rights and protections | Videoconferencing cannot substitute when jury must assess demeanor and presence; communication with counsel hampered | Videoconference is permissible and statutes allow remote presence (and routine civil law allows remote attendance) | Court rejected the State’s reliance on videoconference for the initial trial; noted legislature expressly allowed video for biennial review but not initial trial |
| Whether an absent committed person may be presumed to have waived the right by being in another jurisdiction or by failing to appear | Bluitt argued he did not waive the right; transport attempts failed | State contended transfer to Colorado or failure to appear amounted to waiver | Court found no legal basis for waiver by incarceration in another state or by not appearing; waiver not established |
| Whether Bluitt’s absence was harmful (harmless error analysis) | Absence prejudiced Bluitt because voir dire and witness emphasis on demeanor impaired his defense | State argued absence was irrelevant or harmless; demeanor observable on video deposition | Court found the error harmful: court comment and juror reactions likely caused prejudice; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (upholding civil commitment scheme and discussing constitutional liberty interests)
- Miller v. State, 692 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (construing article 33.03 to require defendant's personal presence at voir dire)
- In re Commitment of Young, 410 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013) (interpreting chapter 841 to afford presence during jury selection)
- In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (civil precedent noting inmates do not have automatic personal attendance rights in ordinary civil cases)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility and demeanor)