1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00389-CV

____________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF ROBERT BECKER

__________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-02-01837 CV 

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The State of Texas filed a petition to commit Robert Becker as a sexually 

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

& Supp. 2014). A jury found that Becker is a sexually violent predator and the trial 

court rendered a final judgment and an order of civil commitment. In two appellate 

issues, Becker challenges the admission of certain evidence. We affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

In issue one, Becker contends that, in accordance with Texas Rules of 

Evidence 403 and 705, the trial court should have excluded evidence on which the 

State’s expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton, relied when forming her opinion of whether 
2

Becker is a sexually violent predator. However, the record does not demonstrate 

that Becker objected to admission of this evidence on the basis of either Rule 403 

or Rule 705. Accordingly, issue one is not preserved for appellate review. See Tex. 

R. Evid. 103(a)(1); see also Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); In re Commitment of Day, 342 

S.W.3d 193, 197 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet. denied).

In issue two, Becker challenges the admission of evidence regarding the 

Multidisciplinary Team (“MDT”) screening process. During Clayton’s testimony, 

the State asked if an evaluation was performed before Clayton’s evaluation. Becker

objected on grounds of speculation, which the trial court overruled. Clayton then 

testified that:

I have -- from what I can review in the records, they’ve been --

they’ve gone through a sex offender treatment provider -- or SOTP 

evaluation by, I think, like a master’s-level person.

Becker objected, arguing that Clayton is not an expert regarding the MDT process.

The trial court overruled the objection and Clayton proceeded to testify regarding

various aspects of the MDT process for determining whether a person has a 

behavioral abnormality. In closing arguments, the State mentioned that another 

evaluation, in which it was determined that Becker has a behavioral abnormality, 

was performed before Clayton’s evaluation. According to Becker, Clayton’s 

testimony and the State’s argument “unfairly ‘stacked the deck’” against him. This 
3

argument was not presented to the trial court when Becker objected to Clayton’s 

testimony. Because the trial objection does not comport with the complaint 

presented on appeal, issue two is not preserved for our review. See In re 

Commitment of Weissinger, No. 09-12-00486-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7819, at 

*7 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“An issue on 

appeal must comport with an objection made at trial; otherwise, the appellate 

complaint is waived.”). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

 

______________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on February 18, 2015

Opinion Delivered March 5, 2015

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