Background
Gregory Scott Alldredge pleaded guilty in December 2023 to three counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact involving his three stepdaughters, who were between seven and thirteen years old when the conduct occurred. Before his release from concurrent five-year prison sentences, the State sought his civil commitment under Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. A jury unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that Alldredge was a sexually violent predator, and the district court ordered him committed for supervision and treatment.
At trial, forensic psychologist Dr. Christine Reed testified that Alldredge had pedophilic disorder and an unspecified personality disorder with antisocial features and presented a high risk of sexually reoffending. In explaining the basis for her opinion, Reed described records containing allegations that Alldredge physically abused and threatened his stepdaughters, abused their mother, and harmed family pets. Alldredge made a hearsay objection when Reed began discussing another psychologist’s opinion, received a running hearsay objection and limiting instructions, but did not ask the trial court to balance the evidence’s explanatory value against its prejudicial effect under Texas Rule of Evidence 705(d).
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Alldredge failed to preserve his appellate argument that the unsubstantiated physical-abuse allegations should have been excluded because their probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or improper use. His hearsay objection did not alert the trial court that he wanted the balancing analysis required by Rule 705(d), so the court lacked an opportunity to decide that question.
The court further concluded that even if admitting Reed’s testimony about the physical-abuse allegations had been erroneous, any error was cured when Alldredge elicited evidence about those allegations during his own questioning of Reed. Because substantially similar evidence was admitted through his examination, the challenged admission did not provide a basis for reversal.
Key Takeaways
- A hearsay objection alone does not preserve a Rule 705(d) claim that otherwise inadmissible facts underlying an expert’s opinion are unfairly prejudicial or likely to be used improperly.
- A party seeking exclusion under Rule 705(d) must ask the trial court to perform the required balancing analysis.
- Any error in admitting evidence may be cured when the complaining party later elicits substantially similar evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of making a specific Rule 705(d) objection when an expert in a sexually violent predator proceeding discloses inadmissible underlying information. Counsel must expressly request the balancing test; a general hearsay objection and limiting instruction may not preserve the issue.
It also illustrates the risk of revisiting challenged allegations during cross-examination. Eliciting the same evidence can independently defeat a request for reversal even if the original admission was erroneous.