Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed a judgment committing Raul Eliss Dominguez as a sexually violent predator under Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The court held that Dominguez failed to preserve his evidentiary challenge to testimony about an unadjudicated sexual offense and further concluded that any error would have been harmless because similar evidence was later introduced without objection.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by admitting the State expert's testimony concerning an unadjudicated alleged sexual offense involving Dominguez's nephew.
- Whether Dominguez preserved his evidentiary complaint for appellate review.
- Whether any error in admitting the testimony was harmless because Dominguez later permitted the same or similar evidence to be introduced without objection.
Holdings
- Dominguez failed to preserve his challenge to the admission of the expert's testimony because he made no timely and specific objection, and he made no running objection to the testimony.
- Even assuming the expert's testimony was erroneously admitted and Dominguez had preserved the issue, any error was harmless because Dominguez later allowed the same or similar evidence to be introduced without objection.
Key quotations
“To preserve error on evidentiary rulings, a party’s objection must be timely and specifically state the grounds on which the objection is based, if the grounds are not apparent from context.” (at 3)
“The general rule is error in the admission of testimony is deemed harmless and is waived if the objecting party subsequently permits the same or similar evidence to be introduced without objection.” (at 4)
Factual background
Dominguez had prior convictions for attempted rape and aggravated sexual assault of a disabled person. During the Chapter 841 commitment trial, the State's clinical psychologist testified about allegations that Dominguez had sexually abused his four-year-old nephew, including statements Dominguez made during an evaluation and deposition. Dominguez did not object to the testimony, and he later testified without objection about the accusation and the absence of a resulting conviction. The jury found him to be a sexually violent predator, and the trial court entered an order of commitment.
Procedural history
The State petitioned to civilly commit Dominguez as a sexually violent predator as his release from incarceration approached. After a jury trial, the jury unanimously found that Dominguez met the statutory definition, and the 51st District Court of Tom Green County entered judgment and an order of commitment. Dominguez appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted his expert's testimony concerning an unadjudicated sexual offense; the court of appeals affirmed because the evidentiary complaint was not preserved and, alternatively, any error was harmless.