1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00404-CV

____________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF RONALD GENE WATTS

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-03-03233 CV

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The State of Texas filed a petition to commit Ronald Gene Watts (Watts) as 

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

(West 2010 & Supp. 2014) (SVP statute). A jury found appellant to be a sexually 

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

commitment. Watts appeals from the final judgment and challenges the legal and 

factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that he suffers from a 

behavioral abnormality. We affirm.
2

UNDERLYING FACTS

At the time of trial, Watts was fifty-eight years old, and he was serving two 

concurrent fifteen-year sentences for aggravated sexual assault of a child and 

failure to register as a sex offender. Watts was previously convicted of rape, 

solicitation of a minor, indecency with a child by exposure, and three counts of 

indecency with a child by contact. His victims’ ages were six, eight, nine, and 

thirteen, and included children that were not related to him, two of his own 

children, a sister-in-law, a niece, and a granddaughter. Watts testified at trial that 

he believes he has sexually molested eight children, and he admitted that he is a 

sex offender. Watts participated in two prior sex offender treatment programs after 

earlier offenses, but he reoffended after receiving treatment. During his current 

incarceration, Watts was enrolled in an eighteen-month sex offender treatment 

program (SOTP program). In his responses to Requests for Admission, he admitted 

receiving major disciplinaries, and at least four minor disciplinaries, while in 

prison.

In 1973, Watts testified that he was seventeen years old when he raped an 

eight-year-old girl. Watts had been watching girls walk to and from school and 

planning to rape one of them, and he selected the eight-year-old girl because she 

was “walking alone and she was vulnerable.” Watts received a ten-year probated 
3

sentence for the rape of the eight year old, and Watts entered into a four to six 

month sex offender treatment program, where he admits he learned that it was 

wrong for him to have sexual interest in children and that his actions hurt his 

victim.

In 1974, while he was on probation for rape, Watts offered a little girl 

money to lift up her blouse so he could see how she had developed and how she 

compared to his first victim. Watts testified that in 1979, he called his thirteenyear-old sister-in-law into the bathroom and exposed himself to her. At trial, Watts 

admitted that he had also fondled the child’s breasts. Watts was then convicted of 

indecency with a child by exposure and he again received a ten-year probated 

sentence for that offense. 

While Watts was on probation for the offense of indecency by exposure, 

Watts committed another offense against an eight-year-old girl that he met at the 

bowling alley. On that occasion, Watts offered the eight-year-old child money to 

lift up her shirt. Watts admitted that at the time he had been having sexual thoughts 

about young girls, including thoughts about friends of his own daughter. The court 

convicted Watts of solicitation of a child, revoked his probation, and sentenced 

Watts to seven years in prison.
4

Watts received early parole from the solicitation offense, and as part of his 

release he was ordered to attend sex offender treatment. During his treatment, he 

again learned about how much pain he was causing and that it was wrong for him 

to touch young girls. While he was on parole, Watts sexually offended against his 

eight-and nine-year-old daughters and against his six-year-old niece on several 

occasions. For his offenses against his own children and his niece, Watts was 

convicted in 1987 of indecency with a child, and he received a ten-year sentence. 

After being released from the 1987 indecency charges, in 2002 Watts was 

arrested for failure to register as a sex offender. He had been driving to a local pool 

where he was playing with the children. The pool management asked him to leave,

and a couple of days later he went to another pool and began playing games with 

the children at that pool. He knew that because he was a sex offender it was a bad 

idea for him to be playing games with children at the pools, but he did it anyway.

Watts was arrested for failure to register as a sex offender after he left one of the 

pools. While he was out on bond for the failure to register as a sex offender, Watts 

then committed an aggravated sexual assault against his eight-year-old 

granddaughter. Watts was convicted of the aggravated sexual assault and the 

failure to register as a sex offender, and he was returned to prison on a fifteen-year 

sentence.
5

Watts agreed that he is sexually attracted to young girls, that he still has 

sexual thoughts about his victims, and that he becomes sexually aroused by 

thoughts of his victims. Watts further testified as follows: 

[State’s Counsel:] And you believe that you need to be in sex offender 

treatment because your sex offending “has to stop.” Do you recall 

making that statement?

[Watts:] Yes.

[State’s Counsel:] Okay. You would agree that being around any

children is a high-risk situation for you?

[Watts:] If -- any children that are -- that are alone.

[State’s Counsel:] Okay. And that’s always been a high-risk situation 

for you. Correct?

[Watts:] Yes.

[State’s Counsel:] Okay. But that is a situation you have not been able 

to avoid. Correct?

[Watts:] Yes.

Nevertheless, Watts testified that his current SOTP treatment program is different 

than his earlier two programs, that he has identified most of the things that 

contribute to the cycle of his sexual offending, that he feels remorse for his 

victims, and that he knows he has triggering events such as drinking excessively, 

reading pornography, going to public pools, seeing girls in bikinis, working “too 

hard[,]” his first wife not taking care of the children, and being under stress.
6

Dr. David Self, a board-certified psychiatrist, testified on behalf of the State.

Self has been in practice since 1988, and he was previously employed as the 

Clinical Director at Rusk State Hospital. Self performed a forensic psychiatric 

review of Watts, which Self explained means he brought “the knowledge base and 

the expertise of psychiatry to a question of law in order to assist the trier of fact, 

the jury, in arriving at an answer to a question.” Dr. Self examined and evaluated 

Watts to determine whether Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality.

According to Dr. Self, a “behavioral abnormality” is a term that is defined in 

the Health and Safety Code, Chapter 841. Self paraphrased and explained to the 

jury that it includes a congenital or acquired condition that a person has:

a condition that by affecting a person’s volitional, which means their 

will, their ability to control their behavior or emotional capacities, the

ability to control their emotional states, makes -- predisposes them to 

commit acts of sexual violence to the extent that they become a 

menace to the health and safety of another person. 

Dr. Self has evaluated people for behavioral abnormalities since 2009, and he 

explained to the jury that his methodology is something he calls “structured 

clinical judgment,” which includes reviewing records and documentation, 

interviewing the person, reviewing test scores, and performing an evaluation. Self 

indicated that his methodology is the type used and relied on by others in his field 

performing behavioral abnormality evaluations. Self conducted an interview of 
7

Watts. The interview was performed in accordance with Self’s training as a 

psychiatrist and in accordance with the accepted standards in the field of forensic 

psychiatry. Self also described the records he reviewed and relied on for this case, 

as part of his standard methodology, which are the same type of records typically 

reviewed and relied upon in behavioral abnormality evaluations.

Dr. Self diagnosed Watts with pedophilia and pedophilic disorder.

According to Self, pedophilia persists through the entire life span, “stronger than 

any other disorder of this sort.” Dr. Self reached the professional opinion, based 

upon his education, training, and experience and the methodology he used to 

evaluate Watts that Watts “has the behavioral abnormality described in Chapter 

841.”

Dr. Self explained that risk factors are “things that have been found through 

empirical research to be associated with increased risk of re-offense.” The first 

broad category of risk factors Self identified for Watts includes Watts’s sexual 

criminal history. Watts has offended against prepubescent girls. While, according 

to Dr. Self, this puts Watts at less risk than persons who offend against little boys,

Watts has offended against both family members and strangers. The fact Watts has 

offended against strangers places Watts at a higher risk to reoffend than someone 

who may only have offended against family members. Watts has also displayed 
8

some child-hunting behaviors, which also increase his risk. Watts’s risk is further

increased by the young age at which he started offending.

The next risk category is sexual deviance. Watts has a sexual deviance in 

that he has committed sexual offenses against young children, which Dr. Self 

diagnosed as pedophilic disorder. Watts also has “attitudes tolerant of sexual 

assault.”

Another risk category for Self addressed for Watts pertains to “intimacy 

deficits.” Watts has been married twice, and Watts describes himself as “feeling 

inadequate, rejected by the world of adult sexuality.” Dr. Self testified that Watts

“identifies with children to an extent that’s really troublesome.” Self explained that 

Watts’s belief that he can “control these children is very attractive and central to 

[Watts] . . . he more emotionally identifies with children than he does with adults.”

According to Dr. Self, another additional broad category or risk for Watts’s 

would be Watts’s response to treatment and supervision. Watts has had two rounds 

of sex offender treatment, and Watts reoffended “during the second outpatient 

treatment.” Self testified that during Watts’s second outpatient treatment Watts was 

also reading child porn novels while he was going to treatment and “was sexually 

offending against those three little girls for the months before the day they filed 
9

[charges] on him . . . so we’ve got him flagrantly sex offending while he’s in 

treatment.”

Finally, Dr. Self looked at whether Watts had violations of his conditional 

release, while on probation, parole, or bond. According to Dr. Self, “[Watts] has 

been given a lot of chances on probation and parole and he has botched all those 

chances by reoffending.” Self explained that when a person “can’t behave in that

circumstance, you have a serious difficulty controlling your behavior, serious 

difficulty.”

Watts’s age, fifty-eight years old, along with the fact he is in sex offender 

treatment at the penitentiary, according to Dr. Self, would be positive factors or 

weigh in his favor. However, due to the fact that Watts has “failed miserably” the 

sex offender treatment twice before by re-offending, Dr. Self is not very hopeful 

that the current treatment will be successful.

LEGAL AND FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY

Watts contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support 

the jury’s verdict because the State failed to present evidence demonstrating that 

Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality. Watts specifically argues that the 

evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding that he suffers from a 

behavioral abnormality because Dr. Self did not have any basis for his opinion 
10

other than his own conclusory testimony in that he never testified what research he 

relied upon for his testimony, and therefore Watts argues that Dr. Self’s opinion 

that Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality is wholly conclusory, speculative, 

and legally insufficient. Watts also argues that the evidence is factually insufficient 

because Dr. Self provided no basis other than his own “ipse dixit.” Watts also 

argues that the great weight and preponderance of the evidence supports a finding 

that he has learned to control his behavior by learning and internalizing concepts 

from his current sex offender treatment program, and that the weak evidence 

against him in this case presents a risk of injustice strong enough to compel a new 

trial. 

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 in an SVP 

commitment proceeding, we weigh all the evidence to determine “whether a 

verdict that is supported by legally sufficient evidence nevertheless reflects a risk 
11

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 civil commitment case, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable 

doubt, that a person is a sexually violent predator. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 

§ 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. 2014). 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) 

(West Supp. 2014). “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). 

During trial, the jury heard Watts’s testimony that he committed his first 

sexual offense when he was seventeen years old. His victim was an eight-year-old 

girl that he had been observing as she walked to school. Watts was convicted in 
12

2003 for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Furthermore, Dr. Self, a medical 

doctor, board certified in general psychiatry, testified that Watts has a behavioral 

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

Self testified that Watts has engaged in sexually deviant acts and suffers from 

pedophilia, a chronic condition. Watts has shown that, despite repeated chances

and participation in different sex offender treatment programs, he cannot control 

his behavior. 

Dr. Self explained that the following factors increase Watts’s risk of reoffense: his early age of the onset of sexual offending, his antisocial features, the 

fact that when he was young he offended while on probation, the number of 

victims and the fact that Watts had multiple acts with at least two of the victims, 

the age of the victims, the aggressive nature of his acts, his history of unstable 

relationships, his need for further treatment, and his re-offense even while he was 

in the sex offender treatment program and while on parole or probation for his 

earlier offenses. Dr. Self explained that he reviewed the actuarial testing referenced 

in the multidisciplinary team report prepared for the case. Watts scored a “[s]ix” on 

the Static-99R, which indicated a “high” risk of reoffending. On appeal, Watts

argues Dr. Self’s testimony has no stated basis in his field and it is too conclusory 

to support the jury’s verdict. We disagree. Dr. Self is board certified in general 
13

psychiatry. In reaching his conclusions, Dr. Self 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 Watts’s case in forming his 

opinions. The testimony shows that Dr. Self interviewed Watts, reviewed records 

that are relevant to Watts’s criminal history, and he reviewed the details of Watts’s 

offenses involving sexually violent crimes. The records Dr. Self reviewed are the 

type of records that experts in Self’s field rely on in forming opinions. Self also 

explained that he performed his assessment of Watts in a manner that is consistent 

with the accepted standards in the field of forensic psychiatry. 

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

methodology to Watts, the jury heard that in his professional opinion Watts has a 

behavioral abnormality that makes Watts likely to engage in predatory acts of 

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

and diagnoses. The jury heard Watts’s testimony and admissions and Dr. Self’s 

testimony that there is a significant risk that Watts will reoffend. We conclude that 

Dr. Self’s testimony was not baseless nor was it too conclusory to support a finding 

that Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality.

Watts also argues that Dr. Self failed to demonstrate that Watts is likely to 

reoffend sexually. According to Watts, Self failed to cite the specific research 
14

supporting the risk factors he considered. The record indicates that Dr. Self 

explained to the jury that pedophilia is a chronic condition, he discussed Watts’s 

risk factors for reoffending, and he stated that, based on his experience and 

training, Watts suffers from a behavioral abnormality and that he has a serious 

difficulty controlling his behavior. Dr. Self’s testimony and conclusions represent 

“a reasoned judgment based upon established research and techniques for his 

profession and [were] not the mere ipse dixit of a credentialed witness.” Day, 342 

S.W.3d at 206. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude 

that a rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Watts 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. On this record, the 

evidence allowed the jury to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to 

determine ultimate issues and to resolve conflicts and contradiction sin the 

evidence by believing all, part or none of the testimony. 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.); In re Commitment of Grinstead, No. 

09-07-00412-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 228, at *20 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 
15

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 Watts 

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 Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 887. Based on the 

jury’s findings, the jury implicitly determined that Watts has serious difficulty 

controlling his behavior and is likely to commit predatory acts of sexual violence 

directed toward individuals for the primary purpose of victimization. See Muzzy, 

2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4750, at **8-9. The jury could infer serious difficulty 

controlling behavior based not only on the expert’s testimony, but also on Watts’s 

past behavior and testimony. See id. 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 Watts, and we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice
16

Submitted on March 26, 2015

Opinion Delivered August 13, 2015

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