In Re Commitment of Devern Williams--Appeal from 9th District Court of Montgomery County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
______________________
NO. 09-06-567 CV
______________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF DEVERN WILLIAMS
On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 06-04-03848 CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas filed a petition to commit Devern Williams as a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 841.001-.150 (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2007). A jury determined that Williams suffers from a behavioral abnormality making him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. The trial court ordered Williams committed as a sexually violent predator. In a single issue, Williams argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony of Dr. Rahn Bailey. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

On direct examination, Dr. Bailey, a forensic psychiatrist, testified as follows:

The records have shown at least during a portion of the time that [Williams] refused certain forms of treatments. We get the information on sexual offender treatment and on alcohol and drug treatment. I'm not sure if he refused both. But at least a portion of the time that he has been in prison he refused some of the treatments that were offered to him.

 

Dr. Bailey testified that by refusing treatment Williams might increase his chance of recidivism.

On cross-examination, Williams's counsel asked Dr. Bailey to locate in the file where he received the information that Williams had "refused treatment." Williams complains on appeal that in answering the question, Dr. Bailey testified to the following: (1) Williams did not receive drug and alcohol treatment while in prison; (2) Williams did not participate in sex offender treatment while in prison; (3) Williams admitted that he used marijuana; (4) Williams admitted that he used heroin; (5) Williams admitted that he used alcohol. Williams did not object to this testimony at trial. The error, if any, presented by the introduction of this testimony was not preserved. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).

Williams also complains that Dr. Bailey read a letter written by Williams's sister to the parole board asking the board not to release Williams. Dr. Bailey read the following passage of the letter:

Please note that although I am [Devern]'s sister, it is not in his best interest or that of my parents' that he be released, particularly if he goes to parole at Austin District 1. As you very well know, [Devern] has been institutionalized for the majority of his life. In addition, he has a clinical diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and as a habitual violent rapist. I am quite disturbed about the issuance of a release certificate for [Devern].

. . . .

Second, on the basis of the letters my mother has received from [Devern] over the last several months, it is glaringly obvious that he is no longer receiving or taking his medications.

 

After Dr. Bailey read the letter, counsel objected that the answer was nonresponsive, and the objection was overruled. Williams argues that Dr. Bailey's testimony was illegal, was an attempt to inflame the jurors with extraneous conduct, made the jury despise Williams, and created prejudice toward him.

We review the trial court's admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex. 1995). When Williams's counsel asked Dr. Bailey to locate in the record where Williams refused treatment, Dr. Bailey identified entries indicating Williams denied needing treatment or denied treatment. Counsel made no timely objection to these responses. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Instead, counsel told Dr. Bailey he had not answered the refusal of treatment question. Counsel objected when Dr. Bailey read the letter from Williams's sister. That letter included a statement that it was "glaringly obvious" Williams was no longer receiving or taking his medications. Counsel renewed the objection when he made a motion to strike the testimony. The cross-examination attempted to show the absence of an express refusal of treatment in the records. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness, in attempting to answer that question, to identify the evidence on which his direct testimony was based.

Furthermore, any error in allowing non-responsive portions of the letter in evidence does not require reversal of the judgment considering the entire record. The complaining party must prove that the error probably resulted in an improper judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a); Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d at 753. To determine whether the case turns on the evidence admitted, we review the entire record. See Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d at 754.

Williams has not shown that the trial court's evidentiary ruling probably resulted in an improper judgment. The jury was not required to make a judgment based solely on the letter's content. Dr. Wanda Grady Ward, Williams's sister, testified that she wrote the letter. Her testimony undercut the information from the non-responsive portions of the letter. She testified that she no longer felt the way she did when she wrote the letter, and she wanted Williams released to his family. Ward testified that Williams's paranoia related to their father, who is now deceased. She testified that Williams was not a danger to her mother or anyone else in the family. She explained that when Williams is taking his medication, "he is more normal than one might otherwise expect[,]" and that his family would make sure that he took his medication. Ward testified that Williams would not be a danger to strangers when he is released from prison. She explained that although her letter stated Williams was no longer taking his medication, she did not know whether he was on medication or not. Ward testified that Williams may not have received any behavioral therapy or psychological counseling services in prison, and that he was only given medication.

We must review the rest of the record to determine whether admission of the evidence probably resulted in an improper judgment. The jury heard testimony that Williams had been hospitalized numerous times. The State entered into evidence the penitentiary packets for Williams's conviction for assault with intent to rape and his two convictions for rape. The jury viewed Williams's video-taped deposition testimony. Williams testified regarding the offenses that led to the three convictions, and testified that he committed his third offense while on probation for rape. Williams testified that he has had a prison disciplinary infraction for choking and raping an inmate.

Dr. Woodrick, a psychologist, testified that Williams suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Dr. Woodrick explained that Williams was more likely to commit sexual offenses because Williams suffers from an antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. The doctor also indicated that Williams received high-risk scores on his sex offender recidivism scales. Dr. Woodrick concluded that Williams had a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.

Dr. Bailey explained that Williams's schizophrenia increased his chances of recidivism, and that Williams's paranoid schizophrenia caused Williams to act out in a sexually aggressive manner. The doctor testified that most of Williams's delusions related to sexuality and sexual activity, and Williams was probably preoccupied with sex and sexuality for the majority of his waking hours. Dr. Bailey testified that the sexual convictions involved threats and force, and that past aggression indicates future violence. He testified that Williams's scores on the actuarials indicate he has a high risk of reoffending. The doctor also testified that Williams's probation violation is a factor that increases his risk of recidivism. Dr. Bailey concluded that Williams has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.

Based on our review of the entire record, we conclude any error in admitting non-responsive testimony of Dr. Bailey does not require reversal of the judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1. Issue one is overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

 

Submitted on July 24, 2007

Opinion Delivered December 6, 2007

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.