Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury found Joshua J. Wildberger to be a sexually violent predator under the Texas Sexually Violent Predator Act, and the trial court entered a final judgment and civil-commitment order. Wildberger had three aggravated-sexual-assault-of-a-child convictions involving three victims. The first two offenses involved thirteen-year-old girls when Wildberger was seventeen; the third involved a three-year-old child when he was twenty-six, after he had served prison sentences for the earlier offenses.
Forensic psychologist Dr. Jason Dunham opined that Wildberger had a behavioral abnormality. Dunham relied on thousands of pages of records, an interview with Wildberger, deposition testimony, communications with Wildberger’s fiancée, clinical assessment, and actuarial testing. He identified sexual deviance, antisocial orientation, sexual preoccupation, substance abuse, and reoffending after punishment as risk factors. Wildberger denied committing the third sexual offense, denied being sexually attracted to children, and testified that he could control his behavior and avoid reoffending.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed, holding that the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wildberger suffered from a behavioral abnormality making him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. Dunham explained how the statutory definition applied to Wildberger, identified the factual basis for his opinion, and testified that Wildberger’s risk of sexual reoffending remained high despite certain protective factors.
The court rejected Wildberger’s attacks on the credibility and weight of Dunham’s testimony because resolving conflicts, weighing evidence, and determining witness credibility belonged to the jury. It also concluded that Wildberger inadequately briefed any hearsay challenge and explained that, even if preserved, the challenge lacked merit because experts generally may disclose hearsay of a type reasonably relied upon in forming their opinions. The jury likewise was entitled to reject Wildberger’s testimony that he controlled his behavior and sexual urges.
Key Takeaways
- Expert testimony identifying sexual deviance, antisocial orientation, reoffending after punishment, and other risk factors supported the behavioral-abnormality finding.
- The existence of protective factors, including improved institutional behavior and a period without reoffending while free, did not require the jury to reject the expert’s conclusion.
- Challenges directed primarily at an expert’s credibility or the weight of the expert’s conclusions generally do not defeat legal sufficiency when a rational jury could credit the testimony.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial role expert risk assessments and an offender’s history play in Texas SVP proceedings. A reviewing court will uphold a commitment verdict when the evidence, viewed favorably to that verdict, permits a rational factfinder to find the statutory elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
It also underscores that appellate attacks on an expert’s methodology or reliance materials must be properly preserved and briefed as evidentiary issues; repackaging credibility disputes as a legal-sufficiency challenge will not permit the appellate court to reweigh the evidence.