In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00404-CV
____________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF RONALD GENE WATTS
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 14-03-03233 CV
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State of Texas filed a petition to commit Ronald Gene Watts (Watts) as
a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151
(West 2010 & Supp. 2014) (SVP statute). A jury found appellant to be a sexually
violent predator, and the trial court rendered a final judgment and an order of civil
commitment. Watts appeals from the final judgment and challenges the legal and
factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that he suffers from a
behavioral abnormality. We affirm.
1
UNDERLYING FACTS
At the time of trial, Watts was fifty-eight years old, and he was serving two
concurrent fifteen-year sentences for aggravated sexual assault of a child and
failure to register as a sex offender. Watts was previously convicted of rape,
solicitation of a minor, indecency with a child by exposure, and three counts of
indecency with a child by contact. His victims’ ages were six, eight, nine, and
thirteen, and included children that were not related to him, two of his own
children, a sister-in-law, a niece, and a granddaughter. Watts testified at trial that
he believes he has sexually molested eight children, and he admitted that he is a
sex offender. Watts participated in two prior sex offender treatment programs after
earlier offenses, but he reoffended after receiving treatment. During his current
incarceration, Watts was enrolled in an eighteen-month sex offender treatment
program (SOTP program). In his responses to Requests for Admission, he admitted
receiving major disciplinaries, and at least four minor disciplinaries, while in
prison.
In 1973, Watts testified that he was seventeen years old when he raped an
eight-year-old girl. Watts had been watching girls walk to and from school and
planning to rape one of them, and he selected the eight-year-old girl because she
was “walking alone and she was vulnerable.” Watts received a ten-year probated
2
sentence for the rape of the eight year old, and Watts entered into a four to six
month sex offender treatment program, where he admits he learned that it was
wrong for him to have sexual interest in children and that his actions hurt his
victim.
In 1974, while he was on probation for rape, Watts offered a little girl
money to lift up her blouse so he could see how she had developed and how she
compared to his first victim. Watts testified that in 1979, he called his thirteen-
year-old sister-in-law into the bathroom and exposed himself to her. At trial, Watts
admitted that he had also fondled the child’s breasts. Watts was then convicted of
indecency with a child by exposure and he again received a ten-year probated
sentence for that offense.
While Watts was on probation for the offense of indecency by exposure,
Watts committed another offense against an eight-year-old girl that he met at the
bowling alley. On that occasion, Watts offered the eight-year-old child money to
lift up her shirt. Watts admitted that at the time he had been having sexual thoughts
about young girls, including thoughts about friends of his own daughter. The court
convicted Watts of solicitation of a child, revoked his probation, and sentenced
Watts to seven years in prison.
3
Watts received early parole from the solicitation offense, and as part of his
release he was ordered to attend sex offender treatment. During his treatment, he
again learned about how much pain he was causing and that it was wrong for him
to touch young girls. While he was on parole, Watts sexually offended against his
eight-and nine-year-old daughters and against his six-year-old niece on several
occasions. For his offenses against his own children and his niece, Watts was
convicted in 1987 of indecency with a child, and he received a ten-year sentence.
After being released from the 1987 indecency charges, in 2002 Watts was
arrested for failure to register as a sex offender. He had been driving to a local pool
where he was playing with the children. The pool management asked him to leave,
and a couple of days later he went to another pool and began playing games with
the children at that pool. He knew that because he was a sex offender it was a bad
idea for him to be playing games with children at the pools, but he did it anyway.
Watts was arrested for failure to register as a sex offender after he left one of the
pools. While he was out on bond for the failure to register as a sex offender, Watts
then committed an aggravated sexual assault against his eight-year-old
granddaughter. Watts was convicted of the aggravated sexual assault and the
failure to register as a sex offender, and he was returned to prison on a fifteen-year
sentence.
4
Watts agreed that he is sexually attracted to young girls, that he still has
sexual thoughts about his victims, and that he becomes sexually aroused by
thoughts of his victims. Watts further testified as follows:
[State’s Counsel:] And you believe that you need to be in sex offender
treatment because your sex offending “has to stop.” Do you recall
making that statement?
[Watts:] Yes.
[State’s Counsel:] Okay. You would agree that being around any
children is a high-risk situation for you?
[Watts:] If -- any children that are -- that are alone.
[State’s Counsel:] Okay. And that’s always been a high-risk situation
for you. Correct?
[Watts:] Yes.
[State’s Counsel:] Okay. But that is a situation you have not been able
to avoid. Correct?
[Watts:] Yes.
Nevertheless, Watts testified that his current SOTP treatment program is different
than his earlier two programs, that he has identified most of the things that
contribute to the cycle of his sexual offending, that he feels remorse for his
victims, and that he knows he has triggering events such as drinking excessively,
reading pornography, going to public pools, seeing girls in bikinis, working “too
hard[,]” his first wife not taking care of the children, and being under stress.
5
Dr. David Self, a board-certified psychiatrist, testified on behalf of the State.
Self has been in practice since 1988, and he was previously employed as the
Clinical Director at Rusk State Hospital. Self performed a forensic psychiatric
review of Watts, which Self explained means he brought “the knowledge base and
the expertise of psychiatry to a question of law in order to assist the trier of fact,
the jury, in arriving at an answer to a question.” Dr. Self examined and evaluated
Watts to determine whether Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality.
According to Dr. Self, a “behavioral abnormality” is a term that is defined in
the Health and Safety Code, Chapter 841. Self paraphrased and explained to the
jury that it includes a congenital or acquired condition that a person has:
a condition that by affecting a person’s volitional, which means their
will, their ability to control their behavior or emotional capacities, the
ability to control their emotional states, makes -- predisposes them to
commit acts of sexual violence to the extent that they become a
menace to the health and safety of another person.
Dr. Self has evaluated people for behavioral abnormalities since 2009, and he
explained to the jury that his methodology is something he calls “structured
clinical judgment,” which includes reviewing records and documentation,
interviewing the person, reviewing test scores, and performing an evaluation. Self
indicated that his methodology is the type used and relied on by others in his field
performing behavioral abnormality evaluations. Self conducted an interview of
6
Watts. The interview was performed in accordance with Self’s training as a
psychiatrist and in accordance with the accepted standards in the field of forensic
psychiatry. Self also described the records he reviewed and relied on for this case,
as part of his standard methodology, which are the same type of records typically
reviewed and relied upon in behavioral abnormality evaluations.
Dr. Self diagnosed Watts with pedophilia and pedophilic disorder.
According to Self, pedophilia persists through the entire life span, “stronger than
any other disorder of this sort.” Dr. Self reached the professional opinion, based
upon his education, training, and experience and the methodology he used to
evaluate Watts that Watts “has the behavioral abnormality described in Chapter
841.”
Dr. Self explained that risk factors are “things that have been found through
empirical research to be associated with increased risk of re-offense.” The first
broad category of risk factors Self identified for Watts includes Watts’s sexual
criminal history. Watts has offended against prepubescent girls. While, according
to Dr. Self, this puts Watts at less risk than persons who offend against little boys,
Watts has offended against both family members and strangers. The fact Watts has
offended against strangers places Watts at a higher risk to reoffend than someone
who may only have offended against family members. Watts has also displayed
7
some child-hunting behaviors, which also increase his risk. Watts’s risk is further
increased by the young age at which he started offending.
The next risk category is sexual deviance. Watts has a sexual deviance in
that he has committed sexual offenses against young children, which Dr. Self
diagnosed as pedophilic disorder. Watts also has “attitudes tolerant of sexual
assault.”
Another risk category for Self addressed for Watts pertains to “intimacy
deficits.” Watts has been married twice, and Watts describes himself as “feeling
inadequate, rejected by the world of adult sexuality.” Dr. Self testified that Watts
“identifies with children to an extent that’s really troublesome.” Self explained that
Watts’s belief that he can “control these children is very attractive and central to
[Watts] . . . he more emotionally identifies with children than he does with adults.”
According to Dr. Self, another additional broad category or risk for Watts’s
would be Watts’s response to treatment and supervision. Watts has had two rounds
of sex offender treatment, and Watts reoffended “during the second outpatient
treatment.” Self testified that during Watts’s second outpatient treatment Watts was
also reading child porn novels while he was going to treatment and “was sexually
offending against those three little girls for the months before the day they filed
8
[charges] on him . . . so we’ve got him flagrantly sex offending while he’s in
treatment.”
Finally, Dr. Self looked at whether Watts had violations of his conditional
release, while on probation, parole, or bond. According to Dr. Self, “[Watts] has
been given a lot of chances on probation and parole and he has botched all those
chances by reoffending.” Self explained that when a person “can’t behave in that
circumstance, you have a serious difficulty controlling your behavior, serious
difficulty.”
Watts’s age, fifty-eight years old, along with the fact he is in sex offender
treatment at the penitentiary, according to Dr. Self, would be positive factors or
weigh in his favor. However, due to the fact that Watts has “failed miserably” the
sex offender treatment twice before by re-offending, Dr. Self is not very hopeful
that the current treatment will be successful.
LEGAL AND FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY
Watts contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support
the jury’s verdict because the State failed to present evidence demonstrating that
Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality. Watts specifically argues that the
evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding that he suffers from a
behavioral abnormality because Dr. Self did not have any basis for his opinion
9
other than his own conclusory testimony in that he never testified what research he
relied upon for his testimony, and therefore Watts argues that Dr. Self’s opinion
that Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality is wholly conclusory, speculative,
and legally insufficient. Watts also argues that the evidence is factually insufficient
because Dr. Self provided no basis other than his own “ipse dixit.” Watts also
argues that the great weight and preponderance of the evidence supports a finding
that he has learned to control his behavior by learning and internalizing concepts
from his current sex offender treatment program, and that the weak evidence
against him in this case presents a risk of injustice strong enough to compel a new
trial.
Under a legal sufficiency review, we assess all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find,
beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements required for commitment under the SVP
statute. In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881, 885 (Tex. App.—Beaumont
2002, pet. denied). It is the factfinder’s responsibility to fairly resolve conflicts in
the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from basic facts
to ultimate facts. Id. at 887. Under a factual sufficiency review in an SVP
commitment proceeding, we weigh all the evidence to determine “whether a
verdict that is supported by legally sufficient evidence nevertheless reflects a risk
10
of injustice that would compel ordering a new trial.” In re Commitment of Day,
342 S.W.3d 193, 213 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet. denied).
In an SVP civil commitment case, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that a person is a sexually violent predator. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.
§ 841.062(a) (West 2010). A person is a “sexually violent predator” if he is a
repeat sexually violent offender and suffers from a behavioral abnormality that
makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. Id. § 841.003(a)
(West Supp. 2014). A “behavioral abnormality” is “a congenital or acquired
condition that, by affecting a person’s emotional or volitional capacity, predisposes
the person to commit a sexually violent offense, to the extent that the person
becomes a menace to the health and safety of another person.” Id. § 841.002(2)
(West Supp. 2014). “A condition which affects either emotional capacity or
volitional capacity to the extent a person is predisposed to threaten the health and
safety of others with acts of sexual violence is an abnormality which causes serious
difficulty in behavior control.” In re Commitment of Almaguer, 117 S.W.3d 500,
506 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, pet. denied).
During trial, the jury heard Watts’s testimony that he committed his first
sexual offense when he was seventeen years old. His victim was an eight-year-old
girl that he had been observing as she walked to school. Watts was convicted in
11
2003 for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Furthermore, Dr. Self, a medical
doctor, board certified in general psychiatry, testified that Watts has a behavioral
abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.
Self testified that Watts has engaged in sexually deviant acts and suffers from
pedophilia, a chronic condition. Watts has shown that, despite repeated chances
and participation in different sex offender treatment programs, he cannot control
his behavior.
Dr. Self explained that the following factors increase Watts’s risk of re-
offense: his early age of the onset of sexual offending, his antisocial features, the
fact that when he was young he offended while on probation, the number of
victims and the fact that Watts had multiple acts with at least two of the victims,
the age of the victims, the aggressive nature of his acts, his history of unstable
relationships, his need for further treatment, and his re-offense even while he was
in the sex offender treatment program and while on parole or probation for his
earlier offenses. Dr. Self explained that he reviewed the actuarial testing referenced
in the multidisciplinary team report prepared for the case. Watts scored a “[s]ix” on
the Static-99R, which indicated a “high” risk of reoffending. On appeal, Watts
argues Dr. Self’s testimony has no stated basis in his field and it is too conclusory
to support the jury’s verdict. We disagree. Dr. Self is board certified in general
12
psychiatry. In reaching his conclusions, Dr. Self testified that he applied training
and experience related to evaluating whether a person has a behavioral
abnormality, as well as the information he reviewed in Watts’s case in forming his
opinions. The testimony shows that Dr. Self interviewed Watts, reviewed records
that are relevant to Watts’s criminal history, and he reviewed the details of Watts’s
offenses involving sexually violent crimes. The records Dr. Self reviewed are the
type of records that experts in Self’s field rely on in forming opinions. Self also
explained that he performed his assessment of Watts in a manner that is consistent
with the accepted standards in the field of forensic psychiatry.
After Dr. Self explained his methodology and how he applied that
methodology to Watts, the jury heard that in his professional opinion Watts has a
behavioral abnormality that makes Watts likely to engage in predatory acts of
sexual violence. The jury heard evidence of Watts’s risk factors, sexual offenses,
and diagnoses. The jury heard Watts’s testimony and admissions and Dr. Self’s
testimony that there is a significant risk that Watts will reoffend. We conclude that
Dr. Self’s testimony was not baseless nor was it too conclusory to support a finding
that Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality.
Watts also argues that Dr. Self failed to demonstrate that Watts is likely to
reoffend sexually. According to Watts, Self failed to cite the specific research
13
supporting the risk factors he considered. The record indicates that Dr. Self
explained to the jury that pedophilia is a chronic condition, he discussed Watts’s
risk factors for reoffending, and he stated that, based on his experience and
training, Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality and that he has a serious
difficulty controlling his behavior. Dr. Self’s testimony and conclusions represent
“a reasoned judgment based upon established research and techniques for his
profession and [were] not the mere ipse dixit of a credentialed witness.” Day, 342
S.W.3d at 206.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude
that a rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Watts is a
sexually violent predator, and the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury’s
finding. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.062(a); see also Kansas v.
Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 (2002); Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 885. On this record, the
evidence allowed the jury to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to
determine ultimate issues and to resolve conflicts and contradiction sin the
evidence by believing all, part or none of the testimony. See In re Commitment of
Burnett, No. 09-09-00009-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9930, at *13 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont Dec. 31, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Commitment of Grinstead, No.
09-07-00412-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 228, at *20 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan.
14
15, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). We further conclude that, as sole judge of the weight
and credibility of the evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Watts
suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a
predatory act of sexual violence. See In re Commitment of Muzzy, No. 09-13-
00496-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4750, at *8 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 1,
2014, pet denied) (mem. op.); see also Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 887. Based on the
jury’s findings, the jury implicitly determined that Watts has serious difficulty
controlling his behavior and is likely to commit predatory acts of sexual violence
directed toward individuals for the primary purpose of victimization. See Muzzy,
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4750, at **8-9. The jury could infer serious difficulty
controlling behavior based not only on the expert’s testimony, but also on Watts’s
past behavior and testimony. See id. Weighing all of the evidence, we also
conclude the verdict does not reflect a risk of injustice that compels ordering a new
trial. See Day, 342 S.W.3d at 213. We overrule both issues raised by Watts, and we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
15
Submitted on March 26, 2015
Opinion Delivered August 13, 2015
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
16