State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127

Background

Beckelheimer, age 27, was charged with three counts of indecent liberties with a child and one count of first-degree sexual offense involving his eleven-year-old male cousin; the State sought to admit Rule 404(b) evidence from the victim's half-brother about prior acts; the trial court held the 404(b) evidence was sufficiently similar and temporally proximate and allowed it with a limiting instruction; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient similarity; this Court reverses and remands to address remaining issues.
The 404(b) witness testified to acts with a different boy, also a young cousin, in the bedroom, involving touching and oral sex; the acts showed a progression from touching outside clothing to internal touching and oral sex, with the defendant allegedly feigning sleep.
The trial court found similarities in age range, location (bedroom, playing video games), and mode of commission (acts while pretending to sleep), and concluded temporal proximity was reasonable given similarities; one non-bedroom incident was excluded as insufficiently similar.
Beckelheimer’s defense contested admission as improper propensity evidence, while the State argued 404(b) supported modus operandi and other purposes; the trial court gave a limiting instruction and weighed probative value against prejudice.
The Court of Appeals reversed, prompting this Court to adopt a de novo review for 404(b) legal conclusions and an abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 403 balancing; the Court holds the 404(b) evidence was admissible, properly limited, and not unduly prejudicial.
The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of remaining issues on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for 404(b) rulings	State argues de novo review for legal conclusions.	Beckelheimer argues de novo review is inappropriate.	Legal conclusions reviewed de novo; 403 balancing reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Sufficiency of similarity and temporality	State contends similarities show modus operandi; time gap acceptable given similarities.	Beckelheimer argues dissimilarities and remoteness bar admission.	Evidence sufficiently similar and not too remote in time to admit under 404(b).
Rule 403 balancing	State asserts probative value outweighs potential prejudice.	Beckelheimer contends risk of unfair prejudice outweighs probative value.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice; 404(b) admissible.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268 (1990) (broad admissibility under 404(b) for relevant purposes)
State v. White, 340 N.C. 264 (1994) (non-exclusive list of permissible 404(b) purposes; absence of mistake)
State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201 (1987) (liberally admits similar sex offense evidence; modus operandi recognized)
State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278 (1991) (similar acts may support admissibility without requiring near identity)
State v. Riddick, 316 N.C. 127 (1986) (remoteness affects weight, not admissibility when MO present)
State v. Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150 (2002) (establishes similarity and proximity requirements for 404(b))
State v. Hipps, 348 N.C. 377 (1998) (remoteness considered in relation to MO and relevance)
State v. Carter, 338 N.C. 569 (1994) (eight-year lapse admissibility under certain circumstances)