1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00266-CV

____________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF JESSE LEE DAVIS

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court 

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-09-10425 CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Jesse Lee Davis appeals from a jury verdict that resulted in his civil 

commitment as a sexually-violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 

841.001–.151 (West 2010 & Supp. 2016) (the SVP statute). In two issues, Davis

contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s 

verdict. We conclude Davis’s issues are without merit, and we affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.
2

Under the SVP statute, the State bears the burden of proving that a person is 

a sexually-violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tex. Health & Safety 

Code Ann. § 841.062(a) (West 2010). In reviewing legal sufficiency challenges,

we assess the evidence in the light that most favors the jury’s verdict to determine 

whether the jury could rationally find that the individual who is the subject of the

commitment proceeding is a sexually-violent predator. In re Commitment of 

Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881, 885 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied). In 

reviewing the jury’s verdict, we must keep in mind that it was the jury’s 

responsibility to fairly resolve any conflicts in the testimony and to weigh the 

evidence for and against the finding being appealed. Id. at 887. In reviewing 

factual sufficiency challenges in SVP commitment cases, we must determine 

whether the jury’s verdict rests on such weak evidence that although constituting 

legally sufficient evidence that the individual is a sexually-violent predator, the 

individual should nonetheless receive another trial. In re Commitment of Day, 342 

S.W.3d 193, 213 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet. denied).

The evidence from Davis’s trial established that Davis had been convicted of 

three sequential sexually-violent offenses prior to the trial. In his appeal, Davis

does not argue that the State failed to prove that he is a repeat-sexually-violent 

offender. Instead, in his first issue, Davis argues that the evidence is legally 
3

insufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that he is dangerous to the extent that 

he does not presently have the ability to control his sexual impulses.

We disagree that the record contains insufficient evidence to support the 

jury’s conclusion that Davis is dangerous because he lacks the present ability to 

control his sexual impulses. In addition to the evidence of Davis’s past sexuallyviolent offenses, the evidence before the jury included the testimony of Dr. David 

Self, a psychiatrist who evaluated Davis. Dr. Self testified during the trial that 

based upon his education, training, experience, and the methodology he employed 

in reviewing Davis’s case, Davis suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes 

him likely to engage in another predatory act of sexual violence. Dr. Self explained 

the methodology he employed in reviewing Davis’s case, indicating that the 

methodology he followed is the same methodology followed by other experts that 

conduct sexually-violent-predator evaluations in Texas. Dr. Self also explained that

he reviewed a referral packet on Davis, which included Davis’s law enforcement

records, prison records, and sex-offender-treatment records. Dr. Self also testified 

that he reviewed a psychological evaluation on Davis, risk assessment testing on 

Davis, and depositions that were taken in Davis’s civil commitment case. Dr. Self 

also personally interviewed Davis prior to the trial. Dr. Self explained that when 

conducting evaluations in civil commitment cases, he considers all of the 

information he has about the person in evaluating whether the person can control 
4

his sexual urges. The records Dr. Self reviewed in Davis’s case included records 

from a psychologist, Dr. Jason Dunham. According to Dr. Self, Dr. Dunham 

thought that the risk Davis would reoffend was high. Additionally, Dr. Self 

explained that Davis’s lack of control over his sexual behavior could be inferred 

from Davis’s history, which shows that Davis had committed sexual offenses while 

he was under supervision. Dr. Self explained that he knew that Davis was being 

treated in a sex-offender-treatment program; nevertheless, Dr. Self explained that 

Davis had not completed the program, and he stated that Davis had not received 

sufficient treatment at the time of trial to cause him to change his opinion that 

Davis is a sexually-violent predator. Dr. Self also explained that in forming his 

opinions, he considered a variety of factors that he felt reduced the risk that Davis 

would reoffend, including that Davis was fifty-nine years old at the time of the 

trial. Dr. Self explained that recidivism statistics reflect a general recidivism risk 

for individuals, as a group, who are between sixty and sixty-nine years of age of 

five to ten percent. In summary, the record reflects that Dr. Self considered both 

positive and negative factors in forming his opinion that Davis would likely 

reoffend.

Dr. Self diagnosed Davis with pedophilia, and stated that pedophilia is a 

lifelong condition. In reviewing the evidence the jury considered, the jury was 

entitled to agree with Dr. Self that Davis would likely commit another sexually-
5

violent offense. Dr. Self explained that the treatment Davis had received prior to 

the trial had not equipped Davis with sufficient tools to enable Davis to control his 

sexual urges.

The evidence before the jury included Davis’s testimony. Davis testified that 

he could control his sexual urges, but the jury was not required to accept his 

testimony. See In re Commitment of Barbee, 192 S.W.3d 835, 842 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2006, no pet.). Given the other testimony before the jury regarding 

Davis’s prior sexually-violent offenses and the testimony of Dr. Self, the jury 

could rationally reject Davis’s testimony that he did not believe he would reoffend. 

Id. 

We conclude that Dr. Self’s testimony was neither baseless nor too 

conclusory to support the jury’s finding that Davis is a sexually-violent predator. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that a 

rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Davis is a sexuallyviolent predator. 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. We 

overrule issue one.

In issue two, Davis contends the evidence is factually insufficient to support 

the jury’s finding that Davis is a sexually-violent predator. Pointing to Dr. Self’s 

statements that Davis had been a model prisoner and that Davis had nearly 
6

completed the sex-offender-treatment program that he was taking while 

imprisoned, Davis argues that his ability to control his sexual urges while

imprisoned shows that he currently has no serious difficulty controlling his sexual 

impulses. However, the jury was entitled to consider that Davis had not had any

opportunities to commit sexual offenses while incarcerated. As the sole judge of 

the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, the jury 

was entitled to resolve any conflicts and contradictions that existed in the evidence. 

See Barbee, 192 S.W.3d at 842. Weighing all of the evidence admitted in Davis’s 

trial, we conclude the jury’s verdict finding that Davis is a sexually-violent 

predator does not present a significant risk that the jury’s verdict is wrong such that 

Davis should receive another trial. See Day, 342 S.W.3d at 213. We overrule issue

two, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment and order of civil commitment.

AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

 

Submitted on March 11, 2016

Opinion Delivered December 8, 2016

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.