1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00205-CV

__________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF STEPHEN PAUL BORDAGES

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 136th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 1003-Y

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas filed a petition to commit Stephen Paul Bordages as a 

sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.001-.153 (SVP 

statute). A jury found that Bordages is a sexually violent predator. The trial court 

rendered a final judgment and order of civil commitment, and Bordages appealed.

In issues one and two, Bordages challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the 

evidence supporting the jury’s finding. In issue three, Bordages argues that he is 

entitled to a new trial because the State’s expert witnesses’ opinions that he has a 

behavioral abnormality were based on an improper legal definition. We affirm the 

trial court’s judgment and order of civil commitment. 
2

The Evidence

Dr. Antoinette McGarrahan, a psychologist specializing in forensic

psychology and neuropsychology, testified that after reviewing all the records and 

interviewing Bordages, she determined that Bordages suffers from a behavioral 

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

McGarrahan testified that Bordages is sexually deviant and has repeatedly engaged 

in sexually deviant, abhorrent behavior for many years, and she explained that 

despite treatment and punishment efforts, Bordages’s sexual deviancy has persisted.

McGarrahan also testified that in 1987, Bordages sustained a traumatic brain injury 

in a motor vehicle accident, which led him to be sexually impulsive. According to 

McGarrahan, based on actuarial instruments, Bordages was at a high risk to reoffend.

McGarrahan explained that in forming her opinion she relied upon Bordages’s

convictions and allegations of other sexual offenses, as well as her finding that 

Bordages is sexually deviant. McGarrahan testified that Bordages had been 

convicted of animal cruelty, burglary of a habitation with intent to commit assault 

and indecency with a child by exposure, attempted sexual assault of a child, 

indecency with a child by contact, indecent exposure, and attempted aggravated 

kidnapping with intent to commit a sexual assault. McGarrahan explained that 

Bordages also received deferred adjudication for failing to comply with sex offender 

registration, and Bordages failed to complete sex offender treatment because he 
3

denied responsibility for his offenses. McGarrahan testified that while on probation, 

Bordages committed the offense of attempted aggravated kidnapping, for which he 

is currently incarcerated.

McGarrahan testified that she diagnosed Bordages with exhibitionistic 

disorder, paraphilia, frotteuristic paraphilia, and unspecified paraphilia. McGarrahan 

explained that paraphilias are congenital or acquired chronic conditions that affect a 

person’s emotional or volitional capacity and that can predispose a person to commit 

a predatory act of sexual violence. McGarrahan testified that Bordages is still 

sexually deviant, and although Bordages may meet the criteria for a mild 

neurocognitive disorder, McGarrahan testified that Bordages’s brain injury is more 

of an excuse for this behavior. According to McGarrahan, if Bordages does have a 

neurocognitive disorder that causes his sexual acting out, he would still have an 

acquired condition that affects his emotional or volitional capacity and predisposes 

him to commit a predatory act of sexual violence. McGarrahan explained that 

Bordages has a behavioral abnormality whether he is sexually offending because of 

a paraphilia, a brain injury, or a combination of both, and based on Bordages’s 

medical history, traditional treatment modalities for his brain injury have failed. 

McGarrahan further testified that, although Bordages does not have an anti-social 

personality disorder, he does have antisocial attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.
4

McGarrahan identified risk factors that make Bordages more likely to engage 

in sexually violent behavior, including sexual preoccupation, lack of an emotionally 

intimate adult relationship, lack of anger management skills, denial and victim 

stance, persistence after punishment, exhibitionism, antisocial attitude, and 

psychopathic personality traits, as well as a victim pool ranging from toddler to older 

adults and including males, females, and strangers. McGarrahan testified that 

Bordages offended against non-consenting underage individuals despite being 

married and having access to an age appropriate consenting partner, and it was 

significant that Bordages committed offenses spanning from young adulthood until 

his late forties, when risk typically declines. According to McGarrahan, Bordages’s 

offenses are evidence that his emotional and volitional capacity have been affected 

and that he is unable to control his emotions, urges, and desires.

McGarrahan also considered Bordages’s disciplinary history during his

periods of incarceration, which indicates that Bordages engaged in sexual 

misconduct by masturbating in public and was accused of assaulting an officer.

McGarrahan testified that during his current incarceration, Bordages was disciplined 

for attempting to establish an inappropriate relationship with a prison guard, and 

McGarrahan explained that Bordages’s misconduct during prison is evidence that 

his emotional and volitional capacities have been affected. According to 

McGarrahan, being incarcerated has not stopped Bordages’s offending behavior and 
5

medication has not helped Bordages control his sexual impulses. McGarrahan

testified that Bordages is a menace to the health and safety of another person because 

his conditions are chronic and untreated, and Bordages has shown no ability to 

control his behaviors.

McGarrahan also testified that Bordages’s score on the PCL-R or the Hare 

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised showed that he had a moderate degree of 

psychopathic characteristics, and McGarrahan explained that a person need not be a 

psychopath to have a behavioral abnormality. Additionally, McGarrahan testified 

that Bordages’s actuarial scores placed him at a high risk to reoffend in a sexual 

manner, and Bordages has not had sex offender treatment because he claims he does 

not need it. McGarrahan testified that Bordages is seven times more likely to 

reoffend than a typical sex offender, placing Bordages in the 99th percentile.

According to McGarrahan, Bordages suffers from a behavioral abnormality and falls 

into a small but extremely dangerous group of sex offenders who are not amenable 

to traditional treatment modalities.

Psychiatrist Dr. Sheri Gaines testified that she evaluated Bordages and relied 

upon principles of psychiatry in doing so. Gaines explained that the standard 

methodology involves a face-to-face interview, as well as reviewing police and 

prison records, victim statements, depositions, reports of other experts, and other 

ancillary information. Gaines testified that she interviewed Bordages for 
6

approximately three hours and reviewed the records from McGarrahan, as well as 

Bordages’s deposition. Gaines opined that, based on her education, training, 

experience, and methodology, Bordages suffers from a behavioral abnormality that 

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

According to Gaines, the main reasons for her findings were Bordages’s risk 

factors of sexual deviance, the ages of the nonconsenting victims, the length of time 

he has offended, and his current inability to control his sexual behavior in prison.

Gaines explained that the facts and data surrounding Bordages’s sexual convictions 

and unadjudicated offenses also constitute risk factors and helped her to formulate 

her opinion about whether Bordages is likely to reoffend. Gaines testified that other 

risk factors included the fact that Bordages reoffended after receiving sex offender 

treatment and being punished, as well as stranger victims, number of victims, victim 

stance, denial, lack of insight, and lack of empathy. In addition, Gaines testified that 

Bordages had psychopathic traits, including grandiosity, parasitic lifestyle, 

superficial charm, and lying. Gaines also testified that Bordages had received 

disciplinary cases in prison for public masturbation and propositioning.

Gaines explained that she diagnosed Bordages with exhibitionist disorder and 

adult sexual abuse by a non-spouse or non-partner. Gaines testified that based on her 

review of the records, Bordages uses his brain injury as an excuse, bringing it up 

whenever he faces a consequence for his bad behavior. According to Gaines, the 
7

clinical presentation concerning Bordages’s brain injury was inconsistent, and while 

brain injuries can affect a person’s sexual urges, the offenses for which Bordages 

was convicted were not described as impulsive. Gaines explained that while 

Bordages could have a neurocognitive disorder due to his brain injury, the records 

show that Bordages received traditional treatment modalities for his brain injury, 

and those traditional treatments were obviously unsuccessful because Bordages 

continued to offend.

Gaines identified positive or protective factors that might decrease Bordages’s 

risk of reoffending, including family support, education level, and participation in 

prison programs, but Gaines explained that those factors do not change her opinion 

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

in a predatory act of sexual violence. According to Gaines, the evidence shows that 

Bordages has a congenital or acquired condition that has affected his emotional or 

volitional capacity and that he is a menace to the health and safety of others.

Bordages testified that he is currently incarcerated for attempted aggravated 

kidnaping and that he was on probation for failing to comply with sex offender 

registration when he committed the offense. Bordages testified that he committed 

his first sexual offense in April 2004, but he denied the allegations and claimed it 

was consensual. Bordages testified that in June 2004, he was charged with 

committing his second sexual offenses, indecency with a child by contact and 
8

attempted sexual assault of a child, but he denied committing the offenses, 

explaining that he pleaded guilty on the advice of counsel. Bordages also denied the 

allegations regarding his 2014 conviction for indecent exposure as well as other 

allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior.

Bordages admitted that while in prison, he had received disciplinary cases that 

involved sexual misconduct. Bordages testified that during his incarceration, he 

received disciplinary cases for masturbating in public and attempting to establish an 

inappropriate relationship with a correctional officer, but he claimed the allegations 

were false. Bordages also testified that he suffered a brain injury in 1987 that affected 

his short-term memory and caused depression, but he denied that the injury caused

him to have any impulse or behavioral control issues. Bordages explained that he 

takes medication for his mood swings and that he was taking the medication when

he allegedly committed the offense for which he is currently incarcerated. According 

to Bordages, he is not a sex offender, and he was falsely accused of committing the 

sexual offenses of which he was convicted. Bordages explained that he did not 

complete sex offender treatment, and he was charged with committing another 

sexually violent offense after having attended three or four months of sex offender 

treatment. According to Bordages, he requested sex offender treatment during his 

current incarceration, but he did not receive a response.
9

Psychologist Dr. Marisa Mauro testified that she met Bordages for 

approximately five hours. Mauro testified that after reviewing all the records and 

interviewing Bordages, she determined that Bordages does not suffer from a 

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

violence. Mauro explained that she determined that Bordages has an exhibitionist 

disorder and a neurocognitive disorder due to his traumatic brain injury that causes 

his sexual behavior, and because there are appropriate treatment modalities to treat 

his particular condition, Bordages does not fall in the small but extremely dangerous 

group of sexually violent predators that the SVP statute seeks to identify. According 

to Mauro, Bordages’s sexual preoccupation and inappropriate sexual behaviors are 

consistent with a traumatic brain injury, and sex offender treatment is not a typical 

treatment for a traumatic brain injury. Mauro testified that Bordages does not have 

a behavioral abnormality as defined in the SVP statute, because Bordages’s 

neurocognitive disorder can be controlled through treatment with a neurologist, 

psychiatrist, and a psychologist, combined with medication and possible 

rehabilitation. 

Mauro also testified that Bordages’s score on the PCL-R or the Hare 

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised showed that he falls within the range designated as 

mixed psychopathic features, but Mauro opined that Bordages is not a psychopath. 

Additionally, Mauro testified that although she used actuarial instruments in 
10

conducting Bordages’s evaluation, which showed that Bordages is at a moderate to 

high risk of reoffending sexually, Mauro did not place much emphasis on the results 

because she did not find Bordages to be a person meant to be identified by the SVP 

statute. According to Mauro, Bordages has family support to help him obtain 

treatment and provide him with stability. However, Mauro also testified that 

Bordages had reoffended after receiving neuro-rehabilitation and medication

therapy and that there was no guarantee that Bordages would receive the treatments 

she had suggested.

Analysis 

In issues one and two, Bordages argues that the evidence is legally and 

factually insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he has a behavioral 

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

According to Bordages, the State’s experts’ opinions cannot support the verdict, 

because the evidence upon which the opinions are based proves that Bordages is not 

an “extremely dangerous” sex offender who has a “serious difficulty controlling 

[his] behavior.”

In an SVP civil commitment proceeding, the State bears the burden to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent is a sexually violent predator. See

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.062; In re Commitment of Morales, 98 

S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, pet. denied). A person is a sexually 
11

violent predator if the person “is a repeat sexually violent offender[] and []suffers 

from a behavioral abnormality that makes the person likely to engage in a predatory 

act of sexual violence.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.003(a). A behavioral 

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).

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 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).

As discussed above, Bordages testified regarding his convictions for burglary 

of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault, indecency with a child by 
12

exposure, attempted sexual assault of a child, indecency with a child by contact, 

attempted aggravated kidnapping with intent to commit a sexual assault, and 

indecent exposure, and that he received disciplinary cases involving sexual 

misconduct during his incarceration. McGarrahan opined that Bordages suffers from 

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

violence. McGarrahan testified that Bordages is sexually deviant and that his 

deviancy has persisted despite treatment and punishment efforts, and he has a high 

risk of reoffending. McGarrahan testified that Bordages has a behavioral 

abnormality whether he is sexually offending because of a paraphilia, a brain injury, 

or a combination of both, and that his medical history shows that traditional 

treatment modalities for his brain injury have failed. 

The jury also heard Gaines testify that Bordages suffers from a behavioral 

abnormality that predisposes him to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence, 

and the main reasons for her findings were Bordages’s risk factors of sexual 

deviance, the ages of the victims, the length of time he has offended, and his current 

inability to control his sexual behavior in prison. Gaines testified that the clinical 

presentation concerning Bordages’s brain injury was inconsistent, and that Bordages 

uses his brain injury as an excuse. The jury heard Gaines’s testimony that Bordages 

could have a neurocognitive disorder due to his brain injury, but the records show 
13

that Bordages received traditional treatment modalities and that they were 

unsuccessful.

The jury also considered Mauro’s testimony that she determined that 

Bordages does not suffer from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to 

engage in a predatory act of sexual violence, and that Bordages has a neurocognitive 

disorder due to his traumatic brain injury that causes his sexual behavior, which can 

be treated with appropriate treatment modalities. Mauro testified that Bordages is at 

a moderate to high risk of reoffending sexually but does not fall in the small but 

extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators that the SVP statute seeks 

to identify.

The jury had sufficient evidence from which to infer Bordages’s current 

dangerousness. See In re Commitment of Wilson, No. 09-08-00043-CV, 2009 WL 

2616921, at *5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 27, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). As the 

sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, the jury could reasonably 

conclude that Bordages suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely 

to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. See In re Commitment of Lowe, No. 

09-14-00098-CV, 2014 WL 4363624, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept. 4, 2014, 

no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Wilson, 2009 WL 2616921, at *5; Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 

at 887. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational 

jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bordages is a sexually 
14

violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.062(a); Mullens, 92 

S.W.3d at 885. We conclude that the jury’s verdict is supported by legally sufficient 

evidence. We overrule issue one.

In issue two, Bordages argues that the evidence is factually insufficient to 

support the jury’s finding. According to Bordages, the evidence is too meager to 

support a finding that he is an “extremely dangerous” or “worst of the worst” sex 

offender. Bordages relies primarily on In re Commitment of Stoddard, 601 S.W.3d 

879 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, pet. granted), in which the Fort Worth Court of 

Appeals reversed the jury’s verdict finding Stoddard to be a sexually violent 

predator. See Stoddard, 601 S.W.3d at 891. The Fort Worth Court concluded that 

the evidence was factually insufficient to prove that Stoddard is a member of a small 

group of extremely dangerous sex offenders for which civil commitment is 

warranted. Id. at 891-92, 897-98. 

The record shows that the criteria and definitions necessary to support a civil 

commitment under the SVP statute were submitted to the jury and correctly 

described the severity of the behavioral abnormality and the severity of the danger 

that must be present to subject the person to civil commitment. See In re Commitment 

of Almaguer, 117 S.W.3d 500, 505 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, pet. denied); In re 

Commitment of Wirfs, No. 09-19-00007-CV, 2020 WL 1879473, at *6 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont April 16, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). As previously discussed, in 
15

conducting a factual sufficiency review, our task is to consider all the evidence 

presented and then weigh the evidence to determine whether a verdict that is 

supported by legally sufficient evidence nevertheless reflects a risk of injustice that 

compels ordering a new trial. See Day, 342 S.W.3d at 213. Thus, comparing facts

from this case to other SVP cases deviates from our task in a factual sufficiency 

review. See Wirfs, 2020 WL 1879473, at *6. Having weighed all the evidence in the 

record, we conclude that the jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 

Bordages was a repeat sexually violent offender who suffers from a behavioral 

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

and that there is no injustice in the jury’s verdict that would require a new trial. See 

Day, 342 S.W.3d at 213. Because the evidence is factually sufficient, we overrule 

issue two. 

In issue three, Bordages complains that McGarrahan’s and Gaines’s opinions

that he has a behavioral abnormality are based on an incorrect definition of 

“behavioral abnormality.” Bordages complains that the record reflects that 

McGarrahan and Gaines incorrectly believed that the legislative findings in section 

841.001 only apply to “extremely dangerous” sex offenders and not to a “behavioral 

abnormality” determination. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.001 (stating 

that sexually violent predators have a behavioral abnormality that is not amenable to 

traditional mental illness treatment modalities). The record shows that after hearing 
16

the parties’ arguments, the trial court allowed the experts to reference section 

841.001 on the legislative findings, and the trial court stated that the jury could 

consider whether Bordages was amenable to traditional treatment modalities in 

determining whether Bordages suffers from a behavioral abnormality. See In re 

Commitment of Nicholson, No. 09-13-00498-CV, 2014 WL 4460417, at *4 (Tex. 

App.—Beaumont Sept. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op). 

McGarrahan testified that Bordagessuffers from a behavioral abnormality and 

falls into a small but extremely dangerous group of sex offenders who are not 

amenable to traditional treatment modalities. Gaines testified that Bordages suffers 

from a behavioral abnormality, and that the traditional treatment modalities that 

Bordages received for his brain injury were unsuccessful. We conclude that 

Bordages offers no support from the record for his argument that McGarrahan or 

Gaines used an incorrect definition of “behavioral abnormality.” Additionally, 

because the SVP statute does not include any reference to treatment modalities or 

the inappropriateness of traditional mental health treatment modalities in its 

definition of “behavioral abnormality,” Bordages fails to offer sufficient argument 

and authority to explain how McGarrahan’s and Gaines’s definitions of “behavioral 

abnormality” materially differ from the definition in section 841.002(2). See In re 

Commitment of Williams, 539 S.W.3d 429, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2017, no pet.); see also Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.002(2). Because 
17

Bordages’s brief fails to provide appropriate citations to authorities and the record 

in support of his argument, we overrule Bordages’s third issue as inadequately 

briefed. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); In re Commitment of Woods, No. 02-19-00155-

CV, 2020 WL 3969958, at *13 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 11, 2020, pet. denied) 

(mem. op.). Having overruled each of Bordages’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment and order of civil commitment. 

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on May 18, 2020

Opinion Delivered December 17, 2020

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