In re the Commitment of Short
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5246
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Procedural posture: State filed petition under Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 841 to civilly commit Von Michael Short as a sexually violent predator (SVP); jury trial resulted in a unanimous verdict finding Short an SVP and the trial court ordered commitment.
- Short’s criminal history: Multiple 1991–1992 sexual offenses (burglary with intent to commit sexual assault; aggravated kidnapping with sexual assault; sexual assault at an apartment complex; attempted aggravated sexual assault of a coworker) and related convictions/penal sentences.
- Experts and testimony: Two State experts (forensic psychologist Dr. Dunham and psychiatrist Dr. Arambula) testified Short has sexual deviance (provisional sexual sadism/paraphilia), antisocial personality features, and risk factors for recidivism; Short’s expert (Dr. Mauro) disputed a qualifying disorder and emphasized protective factors (sobriety, discipline record, support).
- Other evidence: Short’s prison disciplinary record showed improvement and no in-prison sexual incidents; Short participated in some programs and had community/support witnesses willing to assist upon release; Short has not completed formal sex-offender treatment.
- Core legal question on appeal: Short challenged both legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence that he currently suffers from a “behavioral abnormality” (a congenital/acquired condition affecting emotional or volitional capacity that predisposes to sexually violent acts) and that the State connected past offenses to present dangerousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Short) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency: whether evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Short has a behavioral abnormality | State failed to connect past offenses to present condition; no showing Short currently lacks control or has qualifying disorder | Expert testimony and records establish diagnoses (sexual deviance/paraphilic features, antisocial traits), offense pattern, minimizing, lack of sex-offender treatment — supporting present dangerousness | Affirmed: evidence legally sufficient to support behavioral-abnormality finding |
| Factual sufficiency: whether weight of evidence creates risk of injustice warranting new trial | Same as legal-sufficiency complaint; evidence favors exculpatory factors (sobriety, discipline, supports) and expert disagreement | Weighing all evidence, State’s expert opinions and offense history overcome mitigating factors | Affirmed: evidence factually sufficient; no undue risk of injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Stuteville, 463 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (applies criminal legal-sufficiency standard to SVP commitment)
- In re Commitment of Dever, 521 S.W.3d 84 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017) (factual-sufficiency review in commitment context)
- In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011) (discusses when factual-sufficiency reversal is required in SVP proceedings)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Arkoma Basin Exploration Co. v. FMF Associates, 249 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2008) (preservation-of-error principle: objections must be clear enough to allow trial court to correct them)