1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-16-00012-CV

____________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF STEVE HOOD JR.

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15-05-05170-CV

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The State of Texas filed a petition to commit Steve Hood Jr. (Hood) as a 

sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151 

(West 2010 & Supp. 2015) (SVP statute). A jury found that Hood is a sexually 

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

commitment. Hood filed an appeal. In two issues, Hood challenges the sufficiency 

of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm the trial court’s judgment 

and order of civil commitment.
2

THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

Admissions and Testimony of Hood

The State read Hood’s responses to the State’s request for admissions into 

the record before the jury. In Hood’s responses and at trial, Hood admitted that he 

has five convictions for indecency with a child by contact and two convictions for 

aggravated sexual assault of a child. He testified that, at the time of trial, he was 

incarcerated for each of the seven convictions. Hood explained that one of his 

victims was his adopted sister, K.H. According to Hood, he fondled her in 1999 

when he was approximately thirty-three years old and she was approximately 

fourteen years old, and he made a video recording of the act which he later 

watched. Hood testified that K.H. was asleep, and although he remembers sexually 

offending against her and videotaping the offense, he does not remember “any of 

the exact details[.]” He pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by contact, was 

convicted, and received a fifteen-year sentence for that conviction. He also 

admitted at trial that he sexually assaulted K.H. and that he pleaded guilty to 

aggravated sexual assault of a child, was convicted, and received a fifteen-year 

sentence for that offense.

Hood explained at trial that he also fondled A.B., his niece, in 1999 when 

she was approximately eleven years old, and he also made a video recording of that 
3

offense. Hood testified that he recalled sexually offending against A.B. and 

recording the act but “couldn’t recall hardly any details.” As to A.B., Hood pleaded 

guilty to the charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child and to indecency with a 

child by sexual contact, was convicted and received a fifteen-year sentence for 

each offense.

Hood testified that he also pleaded guilty to three charges of indecency with 

a child by sexual contact in 2001 for offenses against three other girls younger than 

fourteen years old. Hood testified that two of the girls were his neighbors and one 

of the girls was a friend of the other two girls. Hood testified he took the three girls 

to the beach, and although he admitted at trial to sexually offending against the 

neighbors’ children, he did not recall sexually offending against the other child. 

Hood admitted that he pleaded guilty to all three offenses, was convicted of the 

offenses, and received a fifteen-year sentence for each offense.

Hood testified that he graduated from high school, completed college 

courses, and was employed as a pipe fitter/welder prior to his incarceration. 

According to Hood, he had an injury at work in 1996 and he received a 

prescription for pain medicine. He testified that he began mixing the pain 

medication with alcohol and would sometimes drink a case of beer and take fifteen 

Vicodin in one day. Hood agreed that he has never participated in any sex offender 
4

treatment and, although he indicated in his prior deposition that he did not believe 

he needed sex offender treatment, he testified at trial that he now believes he does 

need sex offender treatment.

Hood testified that he does not believe he is at any risk to reoffend sexually

and he does not believe he has a problem when it comes to sexually offending. 

Hood explained that he will not reoffend when released from prison because he is 

“sober and clean now[]” and is “not the same person [he] was then.” Hood testified 

that he does not have a sexual attraction to prepubescent girls and he does not 

believe that he had developed a sexual attraction to his victims prior to offending 

against them. According to Hood, he does not know why he sexually offended 

against his victims and he denied being sexually attracted to them. He testified that 

he “believe[s] the drugs and alcohol made [him] make stupid mistakes and make 

stupid decisions[,]” and he agreed that in his deposition he indicated that sexual 

issues with his wife led to his attraction to his victims. Hood admitted to being 

addicted to Vicodin and alcohol in the past but testified that he has not used drugs 

or alcohol in fifteen years, even though both have been available in prison. 

Hood testified that he was diagnosed with leukemia in 2014 and has suffered 

with arthritis, high blood pressure, and hypothyroidism. Hood explained that the 

leukemia diagnosis has made him “rethink everything” and made him realize “how 
5

much harder [he] need[s] to . . . work to make everything right in [his] life.” 

According to Hood, he is now “a lot more mature, . . . more stable[,] . . . better 

educated[,]” and now attends church. 

Testimony of Dr. Arambula

Dr. Michael Arambula, a medical doctor and licensed pharmacist who is 

board certified in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, testified for the State. 

Based on his education, training, and experience, and the methodology he used, Dr. 

Arambula believes Hood suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him 

likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. Dr. Arambula explained the 

methodology he used and records he reviewed for assessing a behavioral 

abnormality are consistent with the practice of other experts who do this type of 

evaluation. He stated that in reaching his opinion he interviewed Hood and 

reviewed Hood’s records including a psychological evaluation of Hood, 

investigative records, medical records, administrative records, and a 

multidisciplinary team report, and actuarial tests pertaining to Hood, as well as 

Hood’s deposition. According to Dr. Arambula, the facts of Hood’s sexual 

offenses were important in helping Dr. Arambula determine whether Hood suffers

from a behavioral abnormality. Dr. Arambula explained that he also relied on 

Hood’s sexual convictions in forming his opinion and that the details of Hood’s 
6

convictions were significant in assisting Dr. Arambula in determining whether 

Hood has a behavioral abnormality because they “demonstrate the unique personal 

characteristics that an individual has when they have a sexually deviant condition.” 

Dr. Arambula testified that the records show that Hood’s first sexual 

offenses were in 1999, when Hood was in his early thirties. Hood’s wife 

discovered a videotape that led police to suspect that sexual assaults had occurred 

against Hood’s adopted sister, K.H, and niece, A.B. The video depicted Hood 

performing various sexual acts on the children. Dr. Arambula explained that when 

he spoke with Hood about the offenses, Hood could not remember the details of 

the offenses and, as indicated in the records, Hood minimized and rationalized the 

offenses against K.H. and A.B. According to Dr. Arambula, K.H. and A.B. looked 

like they were asleep or intoxicated in the videos. Dr. Arambula explained that the 

records showed that although A.B. could not remember details from the videotaped 

sexual offense, she reported that other times Hood had crawled into her bed and 

fondled her. Dr. Arambula stated that Hood exhibited an attitude of demeaning his 

victims, minimizing them, and criticizing them because of past “misbehavior,” as 

if what he did was “okay.” Hood reported being intoxicated during the offenses 

and believed that is why he could not remember the details, but Arambula 

explained to the jury that, because “blackouts are associated with rising levels of 
7

alcohol” and Hood was not drinking when he was videotaping and could operate 

the camera, it was Arambula’s “clinical inference that [Hood] maybe was not as 

intoxicated as he said he had been.” 

Dr. Arambula testified that the records showed Hood’s next sexual offenses 

were against three girls he took to the beach in 2001, and Hood was convicted of 

three charges of indecency with a child by contact. Each girl made an outcry and 

gave a forensic interview at a child advocacy center. Dr. Arambula explained that 

the records he reviewed showed that Hood had taken his victims to the beach in the 

past, that Hood had gained the trust of the victims’ parents, and that he would tell 

the girls things like “I’m never going to hurt you[]” and “I love you[,]” which 

evidences that Hood was grooming his victims and their families. 

Dr. Arambula testified he diagnosed Hood with “unspecified paraphilia with 

pedophilic features[]” and “personality disorder with some features of antisocial 

personality.” Dr. Arambula explained that Hood’s paraphilia is a chronic condition 

that persists over time. Dr. Arambula testified that the records he reviewed, Hood’s 

trial testimony, and Arambula’s interview of Hood supported Arambula’s 

diagnosis of Hood’s personality disorder because there are multiple offenses 

against victims which looked intoxicated or drugged, Hood repeated the offenses 
8

over time, Hood was defensive at the time of his arrest and with Dr. Arambula, and 

Hood denied responsibility and sometimes rationalized his offenses. 

Dr. Arambula identified the following factors as increasing Hood’s risk of 

reoffending: Hood’s sexual deviance and personality disorder with antisocial 

features; Hood’s use of alcohol and opiates; the number of Hood’s sexual victims;

Hood’s victims are girls and younger than teenagers; two of the victims appeared 

“out-of-it” when Hood sexually offended against them and did not have the ability 

to fight back or move away; the progression in the manner of Hood’s sexual 

offenses; Hood’s lack of treatment; and Hood’s significant denial and 

minimization regarding his sexual offenses. Dr. Arambula identified the following 

positive or protective factors: Hood was a good worker in and out of prison; he has 

some work skills; he had a long-term relationship with his wife; and he is in 

remission with regard to alcohol and opiates. 

Dr. Arambula acknowledged that on a Static-99R actuarial administered by 

another psychologist prior to Dr. Arambula’s evaluation of Hood, Hood scored a 

“[z]ero[,]” which would indicate Hood has a low risk for reoffending. However, 

Dr. Arambula testified that he does not believe that the actuarial is an accurate 

indicator of Hood’s risk of re-offense because it does not correctly account for 

Hood’s offenses that occurred on different dates but surfaced at the same time, it 
9

does not take into account some of the details of Hood’s sexual offenses, and it 

does not measure dynamic risk factors such as minimization and denial. Dr. 

Arambula explained that there was nothing about Hood’s trial testimony that 

changed Dr. Arambula’s opinion concerning whether Hood has a behavioral 

abnormality.

On cross-examination, Dr. Arambula acknowledged that he did not conduct 

any type of independent verification of the information in the records he reviewed 

in the case and that all the information he received came from the Special 

Prosecution Unit. Dr. Arambula admitted he did not view the videotape of Hood’s 

offenses, but instead relied upon an affidavit from a detective prepared about a 

month before trial regarding what was on the videotape. 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In two appellate issues, Hood challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of 

the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Specifically, Hood argues that Dr. 

Arambula’s opinion that Hood suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes 

him likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence is speculative and 

conclusory because Dr. Arambula ignored his own stated methodology by relying 

on allegations in the detective’s affidavit of September 19, 2015. Hood also asserts 

that Dr. Arambula’s methodology is flawed, that he failed to apply his own 
10

methodology, and instead “based his opinion almost entirely on his subjective 

feelings about Hood and Hood’s past crimes.” Hood complains that Dr. Arambula 

confused the jury and “even the prosecutor” with his testimony regarding Hood’s 

risk and protective factors, that Arambula was confused “about the parameters of 

and uses of the [Static-99] actuarial test,” and that “[h]is purported ‘scientific’ 

analysis added no insight[.]” 

Under a legal sufficiency review, we assess all the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the verdict to determine whether a 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.W.3d 881, 885 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 

2002, pet. denied). It is the factfinder’s responsibility to fairly resolve conflicts in 

the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from basic facts 

to ultimate facts. Id. at 887. Under a factual sufficiency review, we weigh the 

evidence to determine “whether a verdict that is supported by legally sufficient 

evidence nevertheless reflects a risk of injustice that would compel ordering a new 

trial.” In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193, 213 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 

2011, pet. denied). 

In an SVP case, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a 

person is a sexually violent predator. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 
11

841.062(a) (West 2010). A person is a “sexually violent predator” if he is a repeat 

sexually violent offender and suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes 

him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. Id. § 841.003(a) (West 

Supp. 2015). A “[b]ehavioral abnormality” is “a congenital or acquired condition 

that, by affecting a person’s emotional or volitional capacity, predisposes the 

person to commit a sexually violent offense, to the extent that the person becomes 

a menace to the health and safety of another person.” Id. § 841.002(2) (West Supp. 

2015). “A condition which affects either emotional capacity or volitional capacity 

to the extent a person is predisposed to threaten the health and safety of others with 

acts of sexual violence is an abnormality which causes serious difficulty in

behavior control.” In re Commitment of Almaguer, 117 S.W.3d 500, 506 (Tex. 

App.—Beaumont 2003, pet. denied).

To the extent Hood argues on appeal that Dr. Arambula’s methodology or 

underlying data on which he relied is unreliable, Hood failed to properly preserve 

these arguments. An objection to reliability must be timely made at trial. Tex. R. 

App. P. 33.1(a)(1) (providing that to preserve error, a defendant’s challenge, 

whether by request, objection, or motion, must be timely); In re Commitment of 

Grunsfeld, No. 09-09-00279-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1337, at *16 (Tex. 

App.—Beaumont Feb. 24, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Hood did not challenge 
12

the reliability of Dr. Arambula’s methodology or the underlying data on which he 

relied at trial, and in his motion for new trial, he only alleged that “Petitioner did 

not proffer sufficient reliable evidence that Respondent had a behavioral 

abnormality and that such behavioral abnormality makes him likely to engage in a 

predatory act of sexual violence[.]” Hood has not shown that he challenged the 

reliability of Dr. Arambula’s testimony at a time that would have allowed the trial 

court to conduct an analysis of the expert’s underlying methodology. See 

Grunsfeld, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1337, at *16.

Under Texas law, wholly conclusory and speculative opinion testimony does 

not constitute legally sufficient evidence to support a verdict because such 

testimony “does not tend to make the existence of a material fact ‘more probable or 

less probable.’” City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809, 816 (Tex. 2009) 

(quoting Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227, 

232 (Tex. 2004)). Therefore, “[b]are, baseless opinions will not support a judgment 

even if there is no objection to their admission in evidence.” Id. Hood argues that 

Dr. Arambula’s opinions were baseless and that he ignored his own methodology. 

We disagree. 

During the trial, the jury heard testimony about how Dr. Arambula reached 

his opinions. Dr. Arambula testified he is board certified in general psychiatry and 
13

forensic psychiatry. In reaching his conclusions, Dr. Arambula testified that he 

applied training and experience related to evaluating whether a person has a 

behavioral abnormality, as well as the information he reviewed in Hood’s case in 

forming his opinions. The testimony shows that Dr. Arambula interviewed Hood, 

reviewed records that are relevant to Hood’s criminal history, and he reviewed the 

details of Hood’s offenses involving sexually violent crimes. The records Dr.

Arambula reviewed are the type of records that experts in Arambula’s field rely on 

in forming opinions. Arambula also explained that he performed his assessment of 

Hood in a manner that is consistent with the accepted standards in the fields of 

general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. 

After Dr. Arambula explained his methodology and how he applied that 

methodology to Hood, Dr. Arambula testified that in his professional opinion Hood 

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

sexual violence. The jury heard evidence of Hood’s risk factors, sexual offenses, 

and diagnoses. The jury heard Hood’s testimony and admissions and Dr. 

Arambula’s testimony that Hood’s condition is chronic. We conclude that Dr. 

Arambula’s testimony was not baseless nor was it too conclusory to support a 

finding that Hood suffers from a behavioral abnormality. Viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could have 
14

found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hood is a sexually violent predator, and the 

evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding. 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. 

As to Hood’s arguments that portions of Dr. Arambula’s testimony were 

vague and confusing, the jury is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the 

evidence. See Mullens, 92, S.W.3d at 887. On this record, the evidence allowed the 

jury to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to determine ultimate issues. 

See In re Commitment of Burnett, No. 09-09-00009-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 

9930, at *13 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 31, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). And, the 

jury may resolve conflicts and contradictions in the evidence by believing all, part,

or none of the testimony. In re Commitment of Grinstead, No. 09-07-00412-CV, 

2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 228, at *20 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 15, 2009, no pet.) 

(mem. op.).

We further conclude that, as sole judge of the weight and credibility of the 

evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Hood suffers from a behavioral 

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

See In re Commitment of Muzzy, No. 09-13-00496-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 

4750, at *8 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 1, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see also 
15

Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 887. Weighing all of the evidence, we also conclude the 

verdict does not reflect a risk of injustice that compels ordering a new trial. See 

Day, 342 S.W.3d at 213. We overrule both issues raised by Hood, and we affirm 

the trial court’s judgment and order of civil commitment.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

Submitted on May 31, 2016

Opinion Delivered August 11, 2016

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