in Re Commitment of Carl Althoff Robinson ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                       In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    ____________________
    NO. 09-14-00162-CV
    ____________________
    IN RE COMMITMENT OF CARL ALTHOFF ROBINSON
    _______________________________________________________            ______________
    On Appeal from the 435th District Court
    Montgomery County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 13-07-07692 CV
    ________________________________________________________            _____________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Carl Althoff Robinson challenges his commitment as a sexually violent
    predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151 (West 2010 &
    Supp. 2014) (the SVP statute). In a single issue presented for his appeal, Robinson
    contends the trial court abused its discretion under Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of
    Evidence by allowing the State to develop further testimony concerning
    Robinson’s sexual offenses after reading to the jury Robinson’s admissions to the
    offenses. We overrule the issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    1
    At the beginning of the trial, the State read to the jury Robinson’s
    admissions which he made during pre-trial discovery in response to the State’s
    request for admissions. Robinson admitted to the fact of his convictions and the
    sentences for sexually assaulting two six-year-old children. He admitted certain
    additional facts, not alleged in the indictments, about the commission of those
    offenses.
    After the admissions were read to the jury, the State presented a psychiatrist,
    Dr. Sheri Gaines, to provide her opinion as an expert about whether Robinson
    suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a
    predatory act of sexual violence. When counsel for the State asked Dr. Gaines what
    the records she reviewed and relied upon in forming her opinion indicated
    happened between Robinson and one of the victims, Robinson objected that the
    “details of the offense” were “unduly prejudicial” and outweighed the probative
    value. The trial court overruled the objection and granted a running objection.
    Dr. Gaines described the details of that offense as they were described in the
    police records, then described the details for the offense that Robinson committed
    against the other victim. She described items the police found in a search of
    Robinson’s home. Dr. Gaines related her interview with Robinson and stated that
    Robinson essentially blamed the six-year-old children for initiating the offenses.
    2
    Dr. Gaines explained that she diagnosed Robinson with pedophilic disorder. After
    describing the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder, Dr. Gaines explained
    how Robinson’s conduct and his possession of certain items, as revealed in the
    records, demonstrated that Robinson meets the criteria for pedophilic disorder.
    According to Dr. Gaines, this disorder has affected Robinson’s emotional and
    volitional capacity.
    Dr. Gaines testified that Robinson began an eighteen-month sex offender
    treatment program approximately thirteen months before the trial. She described
    her interview with Robinson and their discussion about his progress in sex offender
    treatment. Dr. Gaines believed that Robinson had successfully “intellectualized”
    the sex offender treatment, but he did not evidence that he had “internalized” what
    he had learned. Dr. Gaines noted that Robinson became noticeably sexually excited
    while talking about his offense against one of the victims, which indicated to her
    that Robinson is presently suffering from sexual deviance and that he has a
    behavioral abnormality. In particular, Dr. Gaines observed that Robinson is still
    struggling with empathy and victim blame. According to Dr. Gaines, deviancy is
    the major risk factor for sexual reoffending, and the disturbing details surrounding
    his offenses illustrate the strength of his deviancy.
    3
    “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
    substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair
    prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly
    presenting cumulative evidence.” Tex. R. Evid. 403. “Evidence is unfairly
    prejudicial when it has an undue tendency to suggest that a decision be made on an
    improper basis, commonly, but not necessarily, an emotional one.” In re
    Commitment of Anderson, 
    392 S.W.3d 878
    , 882 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet.
    denied). “In applying Rule 403, factors that should be considered include the
    probative value of the evidence, the potential of the evidence to impress the jury in
    some irrational way, the time needed to develop the evidence, and the proponent’s
    need for the evidence.” 
    Id. Robinson suggests
    that his admissions to the conduct described in the
    requests for admission conclusively established the existence of those facts, so
    repeating those facts served only to improperly inflame the emotions of the jury.
    Robinson’s admissions, however, conclusively established only the fact of the
    conduct and not its significance in deciding the issue to be determined by the jury.
    The testimony at issue in this appeal formed the basis for Dr. Gaines’s diagnosis of
    pedophilic disorder and her opinion that Robinson suffers from a behavioral
    abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.
    4
    Having an expert explain which facts were considered and how those facts
    influenced the expert’s evaluation assisted the jury in weighing the expert’s
    testimony and the opinion offered regarding the ultimate issue in the case. In re
    Commitment of Day, 
    342 S.W.3d 193
    , 199 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet.
    denied). We hold the trial court did not err in overruling Robinson’s objection that
    the “details of the offense” were “unduly prejudicial” and outweighed the
    probative value. We overrule Robinson’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s
    judgment.
    AFFIRMED.
    ________________________________
    CHARLES KREGER
    Justice
    Submitted on October 15, 2014
    Opinion Delivered April 16, 2015
    Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-14-00162-CV

Filed Date: 4/16/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015