Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 31, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re the Commitment of Raul Eliss Dominguez v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 03-25-00427-CV
• Nature of Suit: Mental HEALTH

• Disposition: Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (18.9K)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Lead Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00427-CV

In re The Commitment of Raul Eliss Dominguez

FROM THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
NO. A240284C, THE HONORABLE BARBARA L. WALTHER, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a final judgment following a jury trial on the State’s petition

to classify Raul Eliss Dominguez as a sexually violent predator subject to involuntary civil

commitment under Chapter 841 of the Health and Safety Code. See generally Tex. Health &

Safety Code §§ 841.001–.153. In one issue on appeal, Dominguez argues that the trial court erred

by admitting evidence of an unadjudicated sexual offense through the State’s expert witness.

Because Dominguez failed to preserve the issue for appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND

In 1989, Dominguez was convicted of attempted rape. In 2011, Dominguez was

convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a disabled person and incarcerated. As his release date

approached, the State petitioned to civilly commit Dominguez as a sexually violent predator. See

id. §§ 841.003(a) (defining “sexually violent predator” as person who “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”); .081(a) (“If . . . the judge or jury determines that the person is

a sexually violent predator, the judge shall commit the person for treatment and supervision.”).

The parties tried the case to a jury. Two witnesses testified: Dr. Jason Dunham, a

clinical psychologist, and Dominguez. The jury unanimously found that Dominguez is a sexually

violent predator, and the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict and entered an order of

commitment. Dominguez appeals.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Chapter 841 of the Health and Safety Code provides for the involuntary “long-term

supervision and treatment of sexually violent predators.” Id. § 841.001. Proving that a person is

a sexually violent predator requires proof of two elements: the person is a “repeat sexually violent

offender” who “suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes the person likely to engage in a

predatory act of sexual violence.” Id. § 841.003(a). “Behavioral abnormality” means “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). A “predatory act” is “an

act directed toward individuals, including family members, for the primary purpose of

victimization.” Id. § 841.002(5).

The State has the burden to prove both elements beyond a reasonable doubt. See

id. § 841.062; In re Commitment of Stoddard, 619 S.W.3d 665, 670 (Tex. 2020). Upon a finding

that a person is a sexually violent predator, the “judge shall commit the person for treatment and

supervision.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 841.081(a).

2
DISCUSSION

Dominguez argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of an

unadjudicated sexual offense through the State’s expert witness testimony. Specifically, he

complains about Dunham’s testimony regarding allegations that Dominguez sexually abused his

four-year-old nephew.

We review a trial court’s decision on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of

discretion. Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline P’ship, LLC, 650 S.W.3d 483, 496 (Tex. 2022). A trial court

abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, without regard for guiding rules or

principles, or without supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708,

712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). 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. See Tex. R. Evid. 102(a)(1); Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Even if error

is preserved, the admission or exclusion of erroneously admitted or excluded evidence is “likely

harmless if the evidence was cumulative, or if the rest of the evidence was so one-sided that the

error likely made no difference.” Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867, 873

(Tex. 2008). “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.” Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 907 (Tex. 2004).

During a hearing outside the presence of the jury to address anticipated evidentiary

issues raised in a motion in limine, the trial court ruled that Dunham could testify to anything that

Dominguez told him in his evaluation and anything Dominguez said during his deposition. But

the trial court cautioned Dominguez’s counsel that “I expect you to object if you think it’s

hearsay.” In the presence of the jury, Dunham testified that Dominguez “told me that he was

3
arrested for sexual abuse of his four-year old nephew.” When opining on Dominguez’s diagnosis,

Dunham said, “You can’t just say, ‘Oh, and I ruled out pedophilia, too,’ because, you know, there’s

possibly a four-year old nephew out there that was possibly offended by him, because he said he

was, you know, arrested for it.” And in discussing Dominguez’s ability to control his behavior

around “vulnerable people,” Dunham testified that “if you consider children[,] four-year-old

boys[,] then that’s a vulnerable [person] too.”

However, Dominguez did not object to any of these statements or make any running

objection to this testimony. Dominguez therefore failed to preserve his argument for appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Further, Dominguez himself later agreed without objection that he “faced

an accusation and charge of sexually offending against [his] nephew” and engaged in the following

exchange with his counsel:

Q. Now, you were asked about an accusation involving your four-
year old nephew. Did that ever result in a charge?

A. The – what became of that is that my constitutional rights were
violated because I was interrogated illegally. I was incarcerated
illegally, and a few other things. I don’t quite remember what
they are.

Q. Was your mother involved in that accusation?

A. Yes. Actually she was the initiator of it.

Q. But you were never actually convicted of any type of sex offense
against your nephew, is that right?

A. Say it again.

Q. This did not lead to any kind of conviction?

A. Yes.

4
Thus, even if Dominguez had objected to Dunham’s testimony, and even assuming that Dunham’s

testimony was erroneously admitted, its admission would be harmless because Dominguez later

allowed the same or similar evidence to be introduced without objection. See Volkswagen,

159 S.W.3d at 907.

We overrule Dominguez’s sole issue on appeal.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

---

Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: March 31, 2026

5