1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-13-00141-CV

________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF JOHN ARTHUR GRAVES

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-05-05201-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas filed a petition to civilly commit appellant John Arthur 

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

841.001-.151 (West 2010 & Supp. 2013). A jury found that Graves is a sexually 

violent predator, and the trial court signed a final judgment and order of civil 

commitment. In two appellate issues, Graves challenges the trial court’s admission 

of testimony concerning the multi-disciplinary team process and denial of Graves’s 

motion to challenge the jury array and to quash the jury panel. We affirm the trial 

court’s judgment and order of civil commitment.
2

ISSUE ONE

In his first issue, Graves complains of the trial court’s admission of 

testimony, over his objection, from State’s expert Dr. Lisa Clayton concerning the 

multi-disciplinary team process. During the State’s redirect examination of 

Clayton, the following exchange occurred:

Q. . . . Is there a filtering process that occurs before you ever see or 

come in contact with any of these cases?

[Graves’s counsel]: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes. There’s . . . a . . . multidisciplinary task force team that first 

there’s [sic] an evaluation done by a treatment provider, a series of 

questions, testing. Then the committee looks at it and then it’s 

referred to a psychologist who does another evaluation. And if . . . 

all those things are positive or think the person has a behavioral 

abnormality, then it gets referred to me.

Graves complains of the admission of this testimony. According to Graves, the 

testimony was harmful because it confirmed Dr. Clayton’s opinion in the jury’s 

“collective mind[.]” 

However, during direct examination, the State had asked Clayton whether 

she reviewed other experts’ diagnoses of Graves, and Clayton testified:

[Dr. Woodrick] is a psychologist that evaluated Mr. Graves in 

April 2012. . . . His role is, I guess, when . . . offenders are flagged to 

possibly have a behavioral abnormality, . . . a psychologist is hired by, 

I guess, the TDCJ, I think, and they do an evaluation to see if --
3

they’re kind of the first gate into whether or not this person has a 

behavioral abnormality. And if the psychologist thinks they do, then 

they’re sent on further for . . . the committee and this procedure. And 

then usually if they think they are, then usually a psychiatrist is hired 

to evaluate them further . . . when the case is filed. 

Graves did not lodge a relevancy objection until the State’s next question, which 

was whether Woodrick’s diagnoses of Graves were similar to Clayton’s.

To preserve error for appeal, a party must lodge a timely objection with 

sufficient specificity to inform the trial court of the ruling sought and the legal 

basis of the objection. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Because Graves did not object the 

first time Clayton testified concerning Dr. Woodrick and the multi-disciplinary 

team process, he has failed to preserve the issue for review. See id. However, even 

if Graves had properly preserved the issue, ‘“[a] successful challenge to 

evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party to show that the 

judgment turns on the particular evidence excluded or admitted.”’ In re 

Commitment of Romo, No. 09-12-00598-CV, 2013 WL 5874615, at *3 (Tex. 

App.—Beaumont Oct. 31, 2013, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (quoting City of 

Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753-54 (Tex. 1995)). 

Clayton testified that she is a forensic psychiatrist, and she explained that 

she utilizes her training in conducting forensic risk assessments of individuals such 

as Graves. Clayton also testified that in conducting such assessments, she reviews 
4

a psychologist’s report, a list of offenses, pen packets, prison records, treatment 

records, medical records, parole records, and sometimes records from the District 

Attorney’s office, and that she followed the same procedure in evaluating Graves.

Clayton explained that she then meets with the individual she is evaluating.

Clayton testified that she considered Graves’s years of deviant sexual behaviors, 

antisocial personality traits, and narcissistic personality traits, and that she

interviewed Graves for approximately three hours. Clayton also explained that she 

diagnosed Graves with paraphilia NOS, pedophilia, hebephilia, sexual sadism, and 

a mixed personality disorder that includes both antisocial and narcissistic traits,

and she opined that Graves has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to 

engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.

Given Clayton’s extensive testimony concerning the records she reviewed, 

her interview with Graves, her diagnoses of Graves, and her opinion that Graves 

has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in predatory acts of 

sexual violence, Graves has not demonstrated that the trial court’s judgment turns 

on the admission of the complained-of evidence, nor has he shown that Clayton’s 

testimony concerning Dr. Woodrick and the multi-disciplinary team probably 

caused the rendition of an improper judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a); Romo, 

2013 WL 5874615, at *3. We therefore overrule issue one.
5

ISSUE TWO

In his second issue, Graves contends the trial court’s decision to deny his 

motion to challenge the jury array and to quash the jury panel constitutes reversible 

error. Specifically, Graves argues that structural error occurred because the array 

did not represent a fair cross-section of the community.

The record reflects that Graves brought his motion “challenging the legality 

of this jury because it is not fairly representative of a cross section of this

community” pursuant to article 35.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 35.07 (West 2006). The Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure 

is intended to embrace rules applicable to the prevention and 

prosecution of offenses against the laws of this State, and to make the 

rules of procedure in respect to the prevention and punishment of 

offenses intelligible to the officers who are to act under them, and to 

all persons whose rights are to be affected by them.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.03 (West 2005). SVP commitment proceedings

are civil matters governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Tex. Health & 

Safety Code Ann. § 841.146(b) (West 2010); Beasley v. Molett, 95 S.W.3d 590, 

607-08 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied). Therefore, the statutory basis 

Graves cited to the trial court is inapposite. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 

841.146(b); Beasley, 95 S.W.3d at 607-08. Additionally, in civil cases, objections 
6

to the jury panel must be presented to the judge charged with organizing and 

impaneling the jurors. State ex rel. Hightower v. Smith, 671 S.W.2d 32, 36 (Tex. 

1984). The record does not demonstrate that Graves filed his motion with the 

impaneling judge rather than solely with the trial judge. We conclude that the trial 

court did not err by denying a motion that was based upon inapplicable authorities 

and apparently was not presented to the proper judge. See Tex. Health & Safety 

Code Ann. § 841.146(b); Beasley, 95 S.W.3d at 607-08; Hightower, 671 S.W.2d at 

36. Accordingly, we overrule issue two and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on December 5, 2013

Opinion Delivered December 19, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.