1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00162-CV

____________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF CARL ALTHOFF ROBINSON

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court 

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-07-07692 CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Carl Althoff Robinson challenges his commitment as a sexually violent 

predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151 (West 2010 & 

Supp. 2014) (the SVP statute). In a single issue presented for his appeal, Robinson 

contends the trial court abused its discretion under Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of 

Evidence by allowing the State to develop further testimony concerning 

Robinson’s sexual offenses after reading to the jury Robinson’s admissions to the 

offenses. We overrule the issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 
2

At the beginning of the trial, the State read to the jury Robinson’s 

admissions which he made during pre-trial discovery in response to the State’s 

request for admissions. Robinson admitted to the fact of his convictions and the 

sentences for sexually assaulting two six-year-old children. He admitted certain 

additional facts, not alleged in the indictments, about the commission of those 

offenses.

After the admissions were read to the jury, the State presented a psychiatrist, 

Dr. Sheri Gaines, to provide her opinion as an expert about whether Robinson 

suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a 

predatory act of sexual violence. When counsel for the State asked Dr. Gaines what 

the records she reviewed and relied upon in forming her opinion indicated 

happened between Robinson and one of the victims, Robinson objected that the 

“details of the offense” were “unduly prejudicial” and outweighed the probative 

value. The trial court overruled the objection and granted a running objection. 

Dr. Gaines described the details of that offense as they were described in the 

police records, then described the details for the offense that Robinson committed 

against the other victim. She described items the police found in a search of 

Robinson’s home. Dr. Gaines related her interview with Robinson and stated that 

Robinson essentially blamed the six-year-old children for initiating the offenses. 
3

Dr. Gaines explained that she diagnosed Robinson with pedophilic disorder. After 

describing the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder, Dr. Gaines explained 

how Robinson’s conduct and his possession of certain items, as revealed in the 

records, demonstrated that Robinson meets the criteria for pedophilic disorder.

According to Dr. Gaines, this disorder has affected Robinson’s emotional and 

volitional capacity. 

Dr. Gaines testified that Robinson began an eighteen-month sex offender 

treatment program approximately thirteen months before the trial. She described 

her interview with Robinson and their discussion about his progress in sex offender 

treatment. Dr. Gaines believed that Robinson had successfully “intellectualized” 

the sex offender treatment, but he did not evidence that he had “internalized” what 

he had learned. Dr. Gaines noted that Robinson became noticeably sexually excited 

while talking about his offense against one of the victims, which indicated to her 

that Robinson is presently suffering from sexual deviance and that he has a 

behavioral abnormality. In particular, Dr. Gaines observed that Robinson is still 

struggling with empathy and victim blame. According to Dr. Gaines, deviancy is 

the major risk factor for sexual reoffending, and the disturbing details surrounding 

his offenses illustrate the strength of his deviancy. 
4

“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is 

substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair 

prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly 

presenting cumulative evidence.” Tex. R. Evid. 403. “Evidence is unfairly 

prejudicial when it has an undue tendency to suggest that a decision be made on an 

improper basis, commonly, but not necessarily, an emotional one.” In re 

Commitment of Anderson, 392 S.W.3d 878, 882 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet. 

denied). “In applying Rule 403, factors that should be considered include the 

probative value of the evidence, the potential of the evidence to impress the jury in 

some irrational way, the time needed to develop the evidence, and the proponent’s 

need for the evidence.” Id. 

Robinson suggests that his admissions to the conduct described in the 

requests for admission conclusively established the existence of those facts, so 

repeating those facts served only to improperly inflame the emotions of the jury. 

Robinson’s admissions, however, conclusively established only the fact of the 

conduct and not its significance in deciding the issue to be determined by the jury. 

The testimony at issue in this appeal formed the basis for Dr. Gaines’s diagnosis of 

pedophilic disorder and her opinion that Robinson suffers from a behavioral 

abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. 
5

Having an expert explain which facts were considered and how those facts 

influenced the expert’s evaluation assisted the jury in weighing the expert’s 

testimony and the opinion offered regarding the ultimate issue in the case. In re 

Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193, 199 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet. 

denied). We hold the trial court did not err in overruling Robinson’s objection that 

the “details of the offense” were “unduly prejudicial” and outweighed the 

probative value. We overrule Robinson’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment. 

 AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 CHARLES KREGER 

 Justice

 

Submitted on October 15, 2014

Opinion Delivered April 16, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.