Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. Charles Philip Anderson challenges his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Anderson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict, and he challenges some of the trial court 's evidentiary rulings.
He attacks some of the judge's comments, the judge's ruling on a demonstrative exhibit, and the judge's fairness. Anderson claims that certain provisions of the SVP statute are unconstitutional. We hold the evidence is sufficient, sections We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Anderson challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior and that he is likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.
His argument is that he has not engaged in any sexual misconduct during the ten years of his second incarceration, and this, he argues, demonstrates he is not dangerous and does not suffer from a serious lack of control. In the legal sufficiency challenge, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any 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. The factual sufficiency challenge to the SVP commitment order requires this Court to weigh the evidence to determine whether a verdict supported by legally sufficient evidence nevertheless reflects a risk of injustice so great that we are compelled to grant a new trial. In re Commitment of Day , S. Anderson has a history of sexual offenses: indecency with a child in ; sexual assault of a child in ; attempted sexual assault of a female adult in ; and aggravated sexual assault in He pleaded guilty to each offense.
