in Re Commitment of John Arthur Graves ( 2013 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-13-00141-CV
________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF JOHN ARTHUR GRAVES
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 12-05-05201-CV
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State of Texas filed a petition to civilly commit appellant John Arthur
Graves as a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§
841.001-.151 (West 2010 & Supp. 2013). A jury found that Graves is a sexually
violent predator, and the trial court signed a final judgment and order of civil
commitment. In two appellate issues, Graves challenges the trial court’s admission
of testimony concerning the multi-disciplinary team process and denial of Graves’s
motion to challenge the jury array and to quash the jury panel. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment and order of civil commitment.
1
ISSUE ONE
In his first issue, Graves complains of the trial court’s admission of
testimony, over his objection, from State’s expert Dr. Lisa Clayton concerning the
multi-disciplinary team process. During the State’s redirect examination of
Clayton, the following exchange occurred:
Q. . . . Is there a filtering process that occurs before you ever see or
come in contact with any of these cases?
[Graves’s counsel]: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes. There’s . . . a . . . multidisciplinary task force team that first
there’s [sic] an evaluation done by a treatment provider, a series of
questions, testing. Then the committee looks at it and then it’s
referred to a psychologist who does another evaluation. And if . . .
all those things are positive or think the person has a behavioral
abnormality, then it gets referred to me.
Graves complains of the admission of this testimony. According to Graves, the
testimony was harmful because it confirmed Dr. Clayton’s opinion in the jury’s
“collective mind[.]”
However, during direct examination, the State had asked Clayton whether
she reviewed other experts’ diagnoses of Graves, and Clayton testified:
[Dr. Woodrick] is a psychologist that evaluated Mr. Graves in
April 2012. . . . His role is, I guess, when . . . offenders are flagged to
possibly have a behavioral abnormality, . . . a psychologist is hired by,
I guess, the TDCJ, I think, and they do an evaluation to see if --
2
they’re kind of the first gate into whether or not this person has a
behavioral abnormality. And if the psychologist thinks they do, then
they’re sent on further for . . . the committee and this procedure. And
then usually if they think they are, then usually a psychiatrist is hired
to evaluate them further . . . when the case is filed.
Graves did not lodge a relevancy objection until the State’s next question, which
was whether Woodrick’s diagnoses of Graves were similar to Clayton’s.
To preserve error for appeal, a party must lodge a timely objection with
sufficient specificity to inform the trial court of the ruling sought and the legal
basis of the objection. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Because Graves did not object the
first time Clayton testified concerning Dr. Woodrick and the multi-disciplinary
team process, he has failed to preserve the issue for review. See id. However, even
if Graves had properly preserved the issue, ‘“[a] successful challenge to
evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party to show that the
judgment turns on the particular evidence excluded or admitted.”’ In re
Commitment of Romo, No. 09-12-00598-CV, 2013 WL 5874615, at *3 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont Oct. 31, 2013, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (quoting City of
Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753-54 (Tex. 1995)).
Clayton testified that she is a forensic psychiatrist, and she explained that
she utilizes her training in conducting forensic risk assessments of individuals such
as Graves. Clayton also testified that in conducting such assessments, she reviews
3
a psychologist’s report, a list of offenses, pen packets, prison records, treatment
records, medical records, parole records, and sometimes records from the District
Attorney’s office, and that she followed the same procedure in evaluating Graves.
Clayton explained that she then meets with the individual she is evaluating.
Clayton testified that she considered Graves’s years of deviant sexual behaviors,
antisocial personality traits, and narcissistic personality traits, and that she
interviewed Graves for approximately three hours. Clayton also explained that she
diagnosed Graves with paraphilia NOS, pedophilia, hebephilia, sexual sadism, and
a mixed personality disorder that includes both antisocial and narcissistic traits,
and she opined that Graves has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to
engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.
Given Clayton’s extensive testimony concerning the records she reviewed,
her interview with Graves, her diagnoses of Graves, and her opinion that Graves
has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in predatory acts of
sexual violence, Graves has not demonstrated that the trial court’s judgment turns
on the admission of the complained-of evidence, nor has he shown that Clayton’s
testimony concerning Dr. Woodrick and the multi-disciplinary team probably
caused the rendition of an improper judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a); Romo,
2013 WL 5874615, at *3. We therefore overrule issue one.
4
ISSUE TWO
In his second issue, Graves contends the trial court’s decision to deny his
motion to challenge the jury array and to quash the jury panel constitutes reversible
error. Specifically, Graves argues that structural error occurred because the array
did not represent a fair cross-section of the community.
The record reflects that Graves brought his motion “challenging the legality
of this jury because it is not fairly representative of a cross section of this
community” pursuant to article 35.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 35.07 (West 2006). The Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure
is intended to embrace rules applicable to the prevention and
prosecution of offenses against the laws of this State, and to make the
rules of procedure in respect to the prevention and punishment of
offenses intelligible to the officers who are to act under them, and to
all persons whose rights are to be affected by them.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.03 (West 2005). SVP commitment proceedings
are civil matters governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Tex. Health &
Safety Code Ann. § 841.146(b) (West 2010); Beasley v. Molett, 95 S.W.3d 590,
607-08 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied). Therefore, the statutory basis
Graves cited to the trial court is inapposite. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §
841.146(b); Beasley, 95 S.W.3d at 607-08. Additionally, in civil cases, objections
5
to the jury panel must be presented to the judge charged with organizing and
impaneling the jurors. State ex rel. Hightower v. Smith, 671 S.W.2d 32, 36 (Tex.
1984). The record does not demonstrate that Graves filed his motion with the
impaneling judge rather than solely with the trial judge. We conclude that the trial
court did not err by denying a motion that was based upon inapplicable authorities
and apparently was not presented to the proper judge. See Tex. Health & Safety
Code Ann. § 841.146(b); Beasley, 95 S.W.3d at 607-08; Hightower, 671 S.W.2d at
36. Accordingly, we overrule issue two and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on December 5, 2013
Opinion Delivered December 19, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
6