In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-16-00012-CV
____________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF STEVE HOOD JR.
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 15-05-05170-CV
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State of Texas filed a petition to commit Steve Hood Jr. (Hood) as a
sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151
(West 2010 & Supp. 2015) (SVP statute). A jury found that Hood is a sexually
violent predator, and the trial court rendered a final judgment and an order of civil
commitment. Hood filed an appeal. In two issues, Hood challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm the trial court’s judgment
and order of civil commitment.
1
THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
Admissions and Testimony of Hood
The State read Hood’s responses to the State’s request for admissions into
the record before the jury. In Hood’s responses and at trial, Hood admitted that he
has five convictions for indecency with a child by contact and two convictions for
aggravated sexual assault of a child. He testified that, at the time of trial, he was
incarcerated for each of the seven convictions. Hood explained that one of his
victims was his adopted sister, K.H. According to Hood, he fondled her in 1999
when he was approximately thirty-three years old and she was approximately
fourteen years old, and he made a video recording of the act which he later
watched. Hood testified that K.H. was asleep, and although he remembers sexually
offending against her and videotaping the offense, he does not remember “any of
the exact details[.]” He pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by contact, was
convicted, and received a fifteen-year sentence for that conviction. He also
admitted at trial that he sexually assaulted K.H. and that he pleaded guilty to
aggravated sexual assault of a child, was convicted, and received a fifteen-year
sentence for that offense.
Hood explained at trial that he also fondled A.B., his niece, in 1999 when
she was approximately eleven years old, and he also made a video recording of that
2
offense. Hood testified that he recalled sexually offending against A.B. and
recording the act but “couldn’t recall hardly any details.” As to A.B., Hood pleaded
guilty to the charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child and to indecency with a
child by sexual contact, was convicted and received a fifteen-year sentence for
each offense.
Hood testified that he also pleaded guilty to three charges of indecency with
a child by sexual contact in 2001 for offenses against three other girls younger than
fourteen years old. Hood testified that two of the girls were his neighbors and one
of the girls was a friend of the other two girls. Hood testified he took the three girls
to the beach, and although he admitted at trial to sexually offending against the
neighbors’ children, he did not recall sexually offending against the other child.
Hood admitted that he pleaded guilty to all three offenses, was convicted of the
offenses, and received a fifteen-year sentence for each offense.
Hood testified that he graduated from high school, completed college
courses, and was employed as a pipe fitter/welder prior to his incarceration.
According to Hood, he had an injury at work in 1996 and he received a
prescription for pain medicine. He testified that he began mixing the pain
medication with alcohol and would sometimes drink a case of beer and take fifteen
Vicodin in one day. Hood agreed that he has never participated in any sex offender
3
treatment and, although he indicated in his prior deposition that he did not believe
he needed sex offender treatment, he testified at trial that he now believes he does
need sex offender treatment.
Hood testified that he does not believe he is at any risk to reoffend sexually
and he does not believe he has a problem when it comes to sexually offending.
Hood explained that he will not reoffend when released from prison because he is
“sober and clean now[]” and is “not the same person [he] was then.” Hood testified
that he does not have a sexual attraction to prepubescent girls and he does not
believe that he had developed a sexual attraction to his victims prior to offending
against them. According to Hood, he does not know why he sexually offended
against his victims and he denied being sexually attracted to them. He testified that
he “believe[s] the drugs and alcohol made [him] make stupid mistakes and make
stupid decisions[,]” and he agreed that in his deposition he indicated that sexual
issues with his wife led to his attraction to his victims. Hood admitted to being
addicted to Vicodin and alcohol in the past but testified that he has not used drugs
or alcohol in fifteen years, even though both have been available in prison.
Hood testified that he was diagnosed with leukemia in 2014 and has suffered
with arthritis, high blood pressure, and hypothyroidism. Hood explained that the
leukemia diagnosis has made him “rethink everything” and made him realize “how
4
much harder [he] need[s] to . . . work to make everything right in [his] life.”
According to Hood, he is now “a lot more mature, . . . more stable[,] . . . better
educated[,]” and now attends church.
Testimony of Dr. Arambula
Dr. Michael Arambula, a medical doctor and licensed pharmacist who is
board certified in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, testified for the State.
Based on his education, training, and experience, and the methodology he used, Dr.
Arambula believes Hood suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him
likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. Dr. Arambula explained the
methodology he used and records he reviewed for assessing a behavioral
abnormality are consistent with the practice of other experts who do this type of
evaluation. He stated that in reaching his opinion he interviewed Hood and
reviewed Hood’s records including a psychological evaluation of Hood,
investigative records, medical records, administrative records, and a
multidisciplinary team report, and actuarial tests pertaining to Hood, as well as
Hood’s deposition. According to Dr. Arambula, the facts of Hood’s sexual
offenses were important in helping Dr. Arambula determine whether Hood suffers
from a behavioral abnormality. Dr. Arambula explained that he also relied on
Hood’s sexual convictions in forming his opinion and that the details of Hood’s
5
convictions were significant in assisting Dr. Arambula in determining whether
Hood has a behavioral abnormality because they “demonstrate the unique personal
characteristics that an individual has when they have a sexually deviant condition.”
Dr. Arambula testified that the records show that Hood’s first sexual
offenses were in 1999, when Hood was in his early thirties. Hood’s wife
discovered a videotape that led police to suspect that sexual assaults had occurred
against Hood’s adopted sister, K.H, and niece, A.B. The video depicted Hood
performing various sexual acts on the children. Dr. Arambula explained that when
he spoke with Hood about the offenses, Hood could not remember the details of
the offenses and, as indicated in the records, Hood minimized and rationalized the
offenses against K.H. and A.B. According to Dr. Arambula, K.H. and A.B. looked
like they were asleep or intoxicated in the videos. Dr. Arambula explained that the
records showed that although A.B. could not remember details from the videotaped
sexual offense, she reported that other times Hood had crawled into her bed and
fondled her. Dr. Arambula stated that Hood exhibited an attitude of demeaning his
victims, minimizing them, and criticizing them because of past “misbehavior,” as
if what he did was “okay.” Hood reported being intoxicated during the offenses
and believed that is why he could not remember the details, but Arambula
explained to the jury that, because “blackouts are associated with rising levels of
6
alcohol” and Hood was not drinking when he was videotaping and could operate
the camera, it was Arambula’s “clinical inference that [Hood] maybe was not as
intoxicated as he said he had been.”
Dr. Arambula testified that the records showed Hood’s next sexual offenses
were against three girls he took to the beach in 2001, and Hood was convicted of
three charges of indecency with a child by contact. Each girl made an outcry and
gave a forensic interview at a child advocacy center. Dr. Arambula explained that
the records he reviewed showed that Hood had taken his victims to the beach in the
past, that Hood had gained the trust of the victims’ parents, and that he would tell
the girls things like “I’m never going to hurt you[]” and “I love you[,]” which
evidences that Hood was grooming his victims and their families.
Dr. Arambula testified he diagnosed Hood with “unspecified paraphilia with
pedophilic features[]” and “personality disorder with some features of antisocial
personality.” Dr. Arambula explained that Hood’s paraphilia is a chronic condition
that persists over time. Dr. Arambula testified that the records he reviewed, Hood’s
trial testimony, and Arambula’s interview of Hood supported Arambula’s
diagnosis of Hood’s personality disorder because there are multiple offenses
against victims which looked intoxicated or drugged, Hood repeated the offenses
7
over time, Hood was defensive at the time of his arrest and with Dr. Arambula, and
Hood denied responsibility and sometimes rationalized his offenses.
Dr. Arambula identified the following factors as increasing Hood’s risk of
reoffending: Hood’s sexual deviance and personality disorder with antisocial
features; Hood’s use of alcohol and opiates; the number of Hood’s sexual victims;
Hood’s victims are girls and younger than teenagers; two of the victims appeared
“out-of-it” when Hood sexually offended against them and did not have the ability
to fight back or move away; the progression in the manner of Hood’s sexual
offenses; Hood’s lack of treatment; and Hood’s significant denial and
minimization regarding his sexual offenses. Dr. Arambula identified the following
positive or protective factors: Hood was a good worker in and out of prison; he has
some work skills; he had a long-term relationship with his wife; and he is in
remission with regard to alcohol and opiates.
Dr. Arambula acknowledged that on a Static-99R actuarial administered by
another psychologist prior to Dr. Arambula’s evaluation of Hood, Hood scored a
“[z]ero[,]” which would indicate Hood has a low risk for reoffending. However,
Dr. Arambula testified that he does not believe that the actuarial is an accurate
indicator of Hood’s risk of re-offense because it does not correctly account for
Hood’s offenses that occurred on different dates but surfaced at the same time, it
8
does not take into account some of the details of Hood’s sexual offenses, and it
does not measure dynamic risk factors such as minimization and denial. Dr.
Arambula explained that there was nothing about Hood’s trial testimony that
changed Dr. Arambula’s opinion concerning whether Hood has a behavioral
abnormality.
On cross-examination, Dr. Arambula acknowledged that he did not conduct
any type of independent verification of the information in the records he reviewed
in the case and that all the information he received came from the Special
Prosecution Unit. Dr. Arambula admitted he did not view the videotape of Hood’s
offenses, but instead relied upon an affidavit from a detective prepared about a
month before trial regarding what was on the videotape.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In two appellate issues, Hood challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of
the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Specifically, Hood argues that Dr.
Arambula’s opinion that Hood suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes
him likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence is speculative and
conclusory because Dr. Arambula ignored his own stated methodology by relying
on allegations in the detective’s affidavit of September 19, 2015. Hood also asserts
that Dr. Arambula’s methodology is flawed, that he failed to apply his own
9
methodology, and instead “based his opinion almost entirely on his subjective
feelings about Hood and Hood’s past crimes.” Hood complains that Dr. Arambula
confused the jury and “even the prosecutor” with his testimony regarding Hood’s
risk and protective factors, that Arambula was confused “about the parameters of
and uses of the [Static-99] actuarial test,” and that “[h]is purported ‘scientific’
analysis added no insight[.]”
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, we weigh the
evidence to determine “whether a verdict that is supported by legally sufficient
evidence nevertheless reflects a risk 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 case, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a
person is a sexually violent predator. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §
10
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. 2015). A “[b]ehavioral 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.
2015). “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).
To the extent Hood argues on appeal that Dr. Arambula’s methodology or
underlying data on which he relied is unreliable, Hood failed to properly preserve
these arguments. An objection to reliability must be timely made at trial. Tex. R.
App. P. 33.1(a)(1) (providing that to preserve error, a defendant’s challenge,
whether by request, objection, or motion, must be timely); In re Commitment of
Grunsfeld, No. 09-09-00279-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1337, at *16 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont Feb. 24, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Hood did not challenge
11
the reliability of Dr. Arambula’s methodology or the underlying data on which he
relied at trial, and in his motion for new trial, he only alleged that “Petitioner did
not proffer sufficient reliable evidence that Respondent had a behavioral
abnormality and that such behavioral abnormality makes him likely to engage in a
predatory act of sexual violence[.]” Hood has not shown that he challenged the
reliability of Dr. Arambula’s testimony at a time that would have allowed the trial
court to conduct an analysis of the expert’s underlying methodology. See
Grunsfeld, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1337, at *16.
Under Texas law, wholly conclusory and speculative opinion testimony does
not constitute legally sufficient evidence to support a verdict because such
testimony “does not tend to make the existence of a material fact ‘more probable or
less probable.’” City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809, 816 (Tex. 2009)
(quoting Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227,
232 (Tex. 2004)). Therefore, “[b]are, baseless opinions will not support a judgment
even if there is no objection to their admission in evidence.” Id. Hood argues that
Dr. Arambula’s opinions were baseless and that he ignored his own methodology.
We disagree.
During the trial, the jury heard testimony about how Dr. Arambula reached
his opinions. Dr. Arambula testified he is board certified in general psychiatry and
12
forensic psychiatry. In reaching his conclusions, Dr. Arambula 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 Hood’s case in
forming his opinions. The testimony shows that Dr. Arambula interviewed Hood,
reviewed records that are relevant to Hood’s criminal history, and he reviewed the
details of Hood’s offenses involving sexually violent crimes. The records Dr.
Arambula reviewed are the type of records that experts in Arambula’s field rely on
in forming opinions. Arambula also explained that he performed his assessment of
Hood in a manner that is consistent with the accepted standards in the fields of
general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.
After Dr. Arambula explained his methodology and how he applied that
methodology to Hood, Dr. Arambula testified that in his professional opinion Hood
has a behavioral abnormality that makes Hood likely to engage in predatory acts of
sexual violence. The jury heard evidence of Hood’s risk factors, sexual offenses,
and diagnoses. The jury heard Hood’s testimony and admissions and Dr.
Arambula’s testimony that Hood’s condition is chronic. We conclude that Dr.
Arambula’s testimony was not baseless nor was it too conclusory to support a
finding that Hood suffers from a behavioral abnormality. Viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could have
13
found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hood 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.
As to Hood’s arguments that portions of Dr. Arambula’s testimony were
vague and confusing, the jury is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the
evidence. See Mullens, 92, S.W.3d at 887. On this record, the evidence allowed the
jury to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to determine ultimate issues.
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.). And, the
jury may resolve conflicts and contradictions in the evidence by believing all, part,
or none of the testimony. In re Commitment of Grinstead, No. 09-07-00412-CV,
2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 228, at *20 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 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 Hood 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
14
Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 887. 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 Hood, and we affirm
the trial court’s judgment and order of civil commitment.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on May 31, 2016
Opinion Delivered August 11, 2016
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
15