In Re Commitment of Adams

him notwithstanding general its constitu- McKEITHEN, C.J., Before BURGESS tionality. Because we find the statute GAULTNEY, JJ. constitutional, question facially to be precedents, accordance with our issue one OPINION is overruled. McKEITHEN, STEVE Chief Justice. Adams’s second issue claims that due a petition State Texas filed to process was violated when the trial court sexually commit L. Adams as a Curtis refused to submit issue volitional predator. violent See Tex. Health & Safe- jury. control to the A divided Court re- (Vernon ty §§ 841.001-.147 Ann. Code cently adversely to decided this issue 2003). juryA found Adams suffers from Almaguer, Adams. 117 at 502- S.W.3d abnormality making behavioral him 506; Graham, 515; Shaw, 117 S.W.3d at act of sexual 117 S.W.3d at 524-25. all three violence. The trial court a final entered by provided we held that the definitions judgment and order of civil commitment. adequately presented the the trial court appeal. Adams raises five issues on He issue to the and thus satisfied due sufficiency not challenge does 505; 117 process. Almaguer, jury’s finding. to support evidence Shaw, Graham, 515; 117 S.W.3d at separate chal- at 524. Because a instruc- presents constitutional not lenges his first three issues. Adams tion on volitional control is Crane, that Adams is a ting under evidence Kansas U.S. (2002), Howev- predator. 151 L.Ed.2d 856 issue violent repeat S.Ct. er, penitentiary pack- two is overruled. offered the State satisfying the other purpose ets for the challenge urges constitutional third 841.003; namely, that element of Section Safety Chapter that Texas Health and from a behavioral abnor- Adams suffers Code, unconstitutionally and vio- vague is likely mality person the to that makes separation powers lates the doctrine. act of sexual vio- arguments The authorities identical and Safety lence. See Tex. & Health Code raised in Adams’s brief were raised in (Vernon 2003). 841.003(a)(2) § A Graham, Ann. Almaguer, and Those Shaw. the stipulation previous to the fact of con- turn, in continued the precedent set did not remove that issue from victions in cases this earlier from Court. See argues controversy. appeal On Adams Beasley, 607-10; also 95 S.W.3d at see Morales, “Focusing past that does on convictions re Commitment 98 S.W.3d filed); a not make the of current behav- (Tex.App.-Beaumont existence Mullens, 883-84, abnormality or probable.” 92 S.W.3d ioral more less 887-88. decisions, previous Based our argu- on over- in the that Evidence record refutes rule issue three. professionals ment. health care Two testi- psy- in fied in the case chief. State’s issues remaining address the that, chologist in context of testified the records, penitentiary admission of Adams’s disorder, personality previous antisocial “pen four, packets.” or In issue Adams to always behavior is considered be the complains that the court erred in best of future predictor behavior. admitting prior evidence of his two convic in penitentiary convictions described the tions appellant for sexual offenses when packets provided experts’ the basis for the stipulated accepted to them. The State diagnoses personality of Adams’s antisocial to to stipulate prior Adams’s offer the two and, according psychiatrist, to the disorder convictions for sexual to offenses According psycholo- sexual to the sadism. establish Adams’s status as a vio gist, personality long- is antisocial disorder Safety predator. lent See Tex. Health & and is not a standing chronic. Adams (Vernon 841.003(a)(1),(b) § Code Ann. impulsiveness marking pedophile but the 2003).1 offered, The State then and the his disorder makes Adams to mental admitted, trial court reco a by committing offense recidivate sexual objected rds.2 Adams a the exhibits as circumstances, opportuni- the based particular whole and to non-sexual offenses ties, his at the time. and emotional state grounds documented within the exhibits penitentiary packets that the We hold prejudice. of lack of relevance and unfair controversy probable made a fact more See Tex.R. Evid. 401-03. thus probable, or less and were relevant. By judicially admitting having two assault, Next, argues Adams that the exhibits prior convictions for sexual question unfairly prejudicial of submit- were because relieved State of burden stipulation appears prison disci- 1. No written in the rec- 2. The records included Adams’s case, stipulation history previous ord. As this a civil plinary and a record of his writing been reduced to and filed should have They were in three convictions. submitted provided by with the record in the manner exhibits. Issue four concerns Exhibit No. Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex.R. Civ. five addresses Exhibit Nos. and issue 11; P. Tex.R. Evid. they focused prior on the convic- disciplinary appeal, records. On he tions or on Adams’s bad character. He argues past violation of argues that his situation is analogous to tendency rules do not criminal cases which the defendant stip- he will commit future sexual criminal acts. prior ulates to the satisfy convictions that argues He also the records do not jurisdictional requirement for felony prove that currently he has a behavioral driving permit while intoxicated or a de- abnormality. fendant to be prosecuted as a felon in records, Before the State offered the possession of a firearm. See Tamez v. psychiatrist State’s forensic testified that State, (Tex.Crim.App. disciplinary reports she reviewed the be- 2000) States, (citing Old v. United Chief evaluating fore Adams for commitment. 172, 192, 644, 655-56, 519 U.S. 117 S.Ct. According psychiatrist, past to the behav- (1997)).3 Tamez, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 good ior is a indicator of future behavior. State introduced evidence of prior six con reports contained in the victions for driving while intoxicated that part records formed of the basis for her only were relevant to establish the two diagnosis reports because the revealed prior felony juris- convictions that difficulty controlling Adams has his diction. By refusing permit Id. to urges. Adams had been institutionalized stipulation, the trial court in Tamez al- years. for most of his adult adolescent and lowed evidence to reach the that was The records reflect the instances in which substantially prejudicial more proba- than negative his behavior attracted attention tive. Id. Tamez inapposite because during Although his incarceration. all but prior

Adams’s being convictions are not four of over one hundred incidents are jurisdictional offered for purposes only. nature, non-sexual in the witness testified Here, the State offered evidence of history repeated that Adams’s assaults prior Adams’s convictions to that he despite being placed on officers in adminis- would act violent manner in segregation trative demonstrated an ina- Therefore, the future. penitentiary bility aggressive to control his behavior. packets were not unfairly prejudicial. Is- appellant’s prison disciplinary records sue four is overruled. probative were of a in consequence, fact

Issue five contends the evidence is, whether Adams has a behavioral regarding disciplinary rec abnormality making likely engage him relevant, highly ord was not was prejudi in a predatory act of sexual violence. Is- cial, and should have been excluded. As sue five is overruled. four, entirely

with issue relies Appellant’s are issues overruled. The through Tamez and Rule 401 judgment and the trial court order of are Texas Rules of Evidence. appeal, On affirmed. only objections consider those that were AFFIRMED. raised and ruled upon during the trial. R.App. 103(a)(1);

Tex.R. Evid. Tex. P. 33.1(a). trial, BURGESS, Justice, At relevancy Adams raised a DON filed a objection to the two dissenting opinion. exhibits contained analogy jurisprudence 3. A better in criminal in best interest determinations in suits for might dangerousness parental rights. be found in future deter- termination We will con- capital prosecutions. analysis arguments minations In civil fine our to the raised in litigation, similar considerations are involved the briefs. and re- Justice, into evidence reverse BURGESS, dissenting. records DON mand for a new trial. I resolution of respectfully dissent majority finds no issue five which into error in the admission evi- court prison disciplinary

dence Adams’ rec- the documents were argues

ords. Adams agree.

not I relevant. “pro- are majority says the records MAYBERRY, Appellant, John is, consequence, fact in bative of a abnor- Adams has a behavioral whether mality making him AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. act of violence.” Howev- sexual er, majority only four of concedes that No. 09-03-070 CV. incidents were sexu- over one hundred Texas, Appeals Court And, entirely by al in overlooked nature. Beaumont. all majority is the remoteness of these incidents. 6, Nov. 2003. Submitted determining to admit evi

When whether Dec. Decided dence of extraneous acts criminal the act as a

we consider remoteness of State, v. 554

factor. James S.W.2d State, (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Reyes (Tex.App.-Corpus 'd). I pet. ref believe remote

Christi My

ness be a factor here. review should records, disciplinary most of infractions,

which concerned minor rule fifty percent over of them oc

show that years prior or ten

curred before no Significantly,

his trial. there are re So, years four

ports after trial, appar

immediately prior to

ently controlling his accor was behavior regulations.

dance with majority vast

The nature coupled their remoteness

incidents with

undermines their relevance. Admission increases the likelihood that

such records the inci improperly jury will focus

dents or defendant’s “bad character.” See (Tex. State, 198, 202

Tamez v. the trial I would find

Crim.App.2000). admitting

court erred

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Commitment of Adams

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Dec 11, 2003

Citation: 122 S.W.3d 451

Docket Number: 09-03-003 CV

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.