CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A jury determined that Donald Barbee was a sexually violent predator under Texas law. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. �� 841.001-.147 (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2005). The jury found that Barbee suffers from a behavioral abnormality making him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence and that he has serious difficulty controlling his sexually violent behavior. HOLDING:Affirmed. Barbee urges the court to disregard the testimony of Dr. Sheru Gaines and Dr. Charles Woodrick that Barbee suffered from a behavioral abnormality. Even though the court in Coastal Transport Co. Inc. v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2004), did not require an objection to preserve error in view of the expert’s testimony and the record, the court specifically stated that when the challenge to the reliability of the expert requires the court to examine the expert’s underlying methodology, technique or foundational data, a timely objection is required. Evaluating the admissibility of Gaines’ and Woodrick’s testimony would require an investigation of the foundational data that they used to express an opinion that Barbee is likely to reoffend. The court holds that objections were necessary to preserve the complaints made to Drs. Gaines’ and Woodrick’s testimony. Since the jury heard Gaines’ and Woodrick’s testimony without any objection to it, they were free to believe or disbelieve it, and they chose to believe it. The court finds the evidence legally sufficient under the relevant standards of review to support the jury’s findings. The court also finds the evidence factually sufficient under the relevant factual sufficiency standards of review to support the jury’s verdict. The voir dire previewed the fact that Barbee had sexually assaulted children. The court finds that the questions at issue were directed at determining the weight that jurors might place on Barbee’s prior convictions. Under these circumstances, the trial court has the discretion to prohibit improper questions although it cannot foreclose all inquiry about a relevant topic. The court holds the trial court’s rulings limiting the voir dire were within its discretion, and that no error in its exercise of that discretion was preserved. Barbee contends the trial court demonstrated bias in interrupting his voir dire, accusing him of trying to bust the panel, and scolding him in the presence of the potential jurors. Attorneys for the parties may be required to respond to the court’s questions about whether a question is narrowly framed to avoid confusion or questions regarding whether a question is intended to preview a verdict. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinions in Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 420 (Tex. March 10, 2006) (not yet released for publication, subject to revision or withdrawal) or Cortez v. HCCI � San Antonio Inc., 159 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. 2005), suggests that all discussion between the trial court and the trial attorneys regarding proper questions must take place outside the panel’s presence. As a matter of law, the court holds that the trial court’s interruptions of Barbee’s counsel during voir dire to respond to objections and to clarify the questions posed here do not demonstrate that the trial court was biased against Barbee or his attorney. Barbee’s complaints regarding the trial court’s comment that Barbee’s counsel was “trying to bust this entire panel,” and the trial judge’s statement to Barbee’s counsel when it said, “Yeah. And I want you to be honest” present a more difficult issue, the court states. The court notes that: 1. judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge, 2. the complete voir dire record demonstrates that the trial judge properly attempted to clarify several questions posed by Barbee’s attorney, 3. Barbee did not perfect his complaints regarding the trial court’s statements by promptly objecting to the statements of the court, and requesting an instruction attempting to cure any curable error. The court finds no reversible error. OPINION:Hollis Horton, J.; Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.