In re Stuteville
| Decision Date | 10 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01–13–00921–CV,01–13–00921–CV |
| Citation | 463 S.W.3d 543 |
| Parties | In re Commitment of Dennis Ray Stuteville |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kenneth Nash, John C. Moncure, Huntsville, TX, for Appellant.
Melinda Fletcher, Amarillo, TX, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Lloyd.
This case involves a civil commitment pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“the SVP Act”).1 A jury found that Dennis Ray Stuteville is a sexually violent predator as defined in the SVP Act, and the trial court rendered a final judgment and an order of civil commitment. In seven appellate issues, Stuteville argues that: (1) there is legally insufficient evidence that he has “serious difficulty controlling his behavior”; (2) there is factually insufficient evidence that he has “serious difficulty controlling his behavior”; (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a separate jury instruction on “serious difficulty controlling behavior”; (4) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged offenses allegedly committed by Stuteville for the limited purpose of explaining the basis of the State's expert's opinion; (5) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of details of these uncharged offenses, as well as details of the charged offenses for the limited purpose of explaining the basis of the expert's opinion; (6) the trial court erred when it granted the State's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of whether he is a “repeat sexually violent offender”; and (7) the trial court improperly commented on the weight of the evidence during voir dire.
We affirm the trial court's judgment and order of civil commitment.2
On June 7, 2004, Stuteville pleaded guilty to two charges of indecency with a child by sexual contact, and three charges of indecency with a child by exposure. The court assessed Stuteville's punishment at ten years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) with respect to each of the two charges of indecency with a child by sexual contact, and five years' confinement in TDCJ with respect to each of the three charges of indecency with a child by exposure. The sentences in all five cases ran concurrently.
Stuteville was scheduled to be released from TDCJ on December 23, 2013. On December 14, 2012, the State filed a petition in the 435th District Court in Montgomery County to civilly commit Stuteville as a sexually violent predator under the SVP Act,3 alleging that he was a repeat sexually violent offender who suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.003(a) (West Supp. 2014). While at TDCJ, Stuteville was evaluated by forensic psychologist Dr. Jason D. Dunham, who concluded that Stuteville met the statutory requirement of behavioral abnormality.
The trial court determined that Stuteville was indigent and appointed him counsel who filed an answer. Two witnesses testified at the jury trial: Dr. Lisa Clayton, the State's expert witness, and Stuteville.
Dr. Clayton, who is board certified in both general and forensic psychiatry, was retained by the State to evaluate Stuteville and determine whether he has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engagein a predatory act of sexual violence. Dr. Clayton testified that she has evaluated approximately 135 sex offenders for behavioral abnormalities during the past thirteen years and testified as an expert witness in civil commitment trials arising from approximately half of those cases.
Dr. Clayton testified that when she evaluates someone for a behavioral abnormality, she begins by compiling and reviewing any available records on that individual and then meets with the person and performs a face-to-face interview and evaluation. Dr. Clayton explained that this is the methodology relied upon by forensic psychiatrists when formulating an opinion in such cases.
Dr. Clayton testified that she reviewed police reports from two different jurisdictions, victim statements, indictments, plea bargain forms, Stuteville's penitentiary packets, sex offender treatment records, and medical records, and spoke with a witness in one case. She also reviewed prior psychological evaluations by the sex offender treatment program (“SOTP”) and forensic psychologist Dr. Dunham. After reviewing these records, Dr. Clayton met with Stuteville for three hours in February 2013. After her interview, she reviewed Stuteville's most recent medical history and his deposition testimony in this civil commitment proceeding. Dr. Clayton testified that based on her education, training, experience, and the methodology she employed, she believed, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that Stuteville suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.
Dr. Clayton testified that Stuteville had somewhere between twenty-seven and forty-three victims going back to 1987, apart from “the ones he was charged with,” and she described various details of these charged and uncharged offenses for the jury. Stuteville objected to Dr. Clayton testifying about the charged and uncharged offenses based on hearsay and argued that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative pursuant to Rules of Evidence 403 and 705(d). The trial court overruled Stuteville's objections, granted him a running objection, and, at Stuteville's request, gave the jury the following oral instruction:
[H]earsay normally is not admissible. However, certain hearsay information contained in records reviewed by experts is allowed into evidence through expert testimony. Such evidence is admitted only for the purpose of showing the basis of the expert's opinion.
Stuteville did not object or request a different instruction.
Dr. Clayton testified that Stuteville pleaded guilty to two charges of indecency with a 10–year–old girl by sexual contact in 2004 for which he received prison sentences.
According to Dr. Clayton, Stuteville befriended the mother of two girls, and eventually began babysitting for them. One of these girls was the named complainant in the two indecency-by-contact convictions. Stuteville paid the girls to perform chores around his home, and he bought them toys, clothing, and jewelry. He would also let. the girls swim and play naked in his hot tub. Dr. Clayton described Stuteville's conduct as “grooming,” and explained to the jury that “grooming” is something sophisticated pedophiles do in order to offend against children while lessening the chances of the child telling someone about the abuse.
The ten-year old complainant told law enforcement that she spent many months with Stuteville, swimming naked in his hot tub, giving and receiving naked massages with oil, mutual masturbating, and watching pornography. The girl claimed that Stuteville threatened that she would be taken away from her mother if she told anyone. After a visit to the school nurse's office in 2002, the nurse contacted CPS due to a suspicious yeast infection
. CPS's investigation culminated in the two charges of indecency with a child by sexual contact that Stuteville pleaded guilty to in 2004. Stuteville denied the allegations against him and blamed the girl's mother.
Dr. Clayton testified that Stuteville's house was “kind of like the neighborhood Disneyland, where lots of little kids wanted to come over.” Stuteville had a bicycle, go-cart, hot tub, and a constant Christmas tree with hundreds of wrapped presents. According to Dr. Clayton, Stuteville told her his house was “a kid magnet.”
Dr. Clayton testified that Stuteville also pleaded guilty to three charges of indecency with a child by exposure in 2004. According to Dr. Clayton, those charges involved three sisters (ages 5, 9, and 12) who lived down the street from Stuteville. The girls began going over to Stuteville's house after they saw other children there. The girls told law enforcement that they swam naked in the hot tub with Stuteville and that Stuteville exposed himself to them on other occasions, masturbated and ejaculated in front of them, and tried to get them to watch pornography with him. Stuteville also tried to convince the girls to let him fondle their breasts and “lick their middles” (i.e., “their vaginal area without clothes on”) and told them that other little other girls had let him touch them in that way before. Stuteville, who warned the girls not to tell anyone, showed them a gun and a large knife that he kept by his bed. Stuteville pleaded guilty to three counts of indecency by exposure involving these girls and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in each case.
Dr. Clayton testified that Stuteville told her that he did not commit any of these crimes even though he had pleaded guilty and that he had been kicked out of sex offender treatment for not admitting the offenses. His denial and his lack of sex offender treatment are risk factors for him reoffending sexually.
Dr. Clayton testified that although he had only been convicted of offending against these four prepubescent girls in 2004, the police records and victim statements that she had reviewed indicated that Stuteville had committed many other offenses against many other victims beginning as early as 1987. Based on her review of the records, Dr. Clayton testified that Stuteville had somewhere between twenty-seven and forty-three victims, including his own daughter and granddaughter. Dr. Clayton also testified that several of the girls reported to law enforcement that Stuteville had told them that he had “43 adopted daughters.” According to Dr. Clayton, this number referred to Stuteville's count of the girls he had sexually assaulted.
In particular, Dr. Clayton testified that Stuteville's teenage daughter made an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re The Marriage of Ramos
... ... preserve error. In re Commitment of Fontenot , 536 ... S.W.3d 906, 918 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) ... (citing Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis , 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 ... (Tex. 2001) (per curiam)); In re Commitment of ... Stuteville , 463 S.W.3d 543, 557 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st ... Dist.] 2015, pet. denied). Ramos has failed to satisfy that ... burden. He does not address preservation of error in his ... brief; in particular, he does not argue that preservation of ... error was unnecessary because the ... ...
-
Bishop v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline
...error should be excused. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Dow Chem. Co., 46 S.W.3d at 241; In re Commitment of Stuteville, 463 S.W.3d 543, 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (appellant bears burden to show how any comments made by trial court were incurable or would excuse hi......
-
Arreola v. Union Pac. R.R.
...the trial judge were incurable or would excuse" the claimant's "failure to preserve error." In re Commitment of Stuteville , 463 S.W.3d 543, 557 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (citation omitted); see also Interest of B.A. , No. 02-21-00278-CV, 2022 WL 247558, at *6 (Tex.A......
-
In re Harris, 14-16-00706-CV
...of Black , 522 S.W.3d 2, 6 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied). But see In re Commitment of Stuteville , 463 S.W.3d 543, 559 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (Jennings, J. concurring) (noting First Court of Appeals bound by Beaumont Court of Appeals' precedent, but di......