State v. Carter, 216 N.C. App. 453

Vanessa, the defendant’s step-daughter, alleged in 2008–2009 that Carter engaged in sexual acts with her, including anal intercourse, starting when she was under 13.
The State charged Carter with two counts of first-degree sexual offense (File Nos. 08 CrS 57285 and 08 CrS 57286) after initial investigations and interviews by police and medical staff.
Vanessa reported the conduct to her mother in August 2008; a medical examiner noted an anal fissure that could be caused by trauma from sexual activity.
Defendant presented evidence suggesting Vanessa’s accusations were retracted or motivated by upset, and questioned Vanessa’s truthfulness during other family episodes.
Trial proceedings culminated in a jury verdict convicting Carter on both counts of first-degree sexual offense and a SBM (sex offender monitoring) order for life; Carter appealed.
The Court of Appeals vacated the SBM order for the 57285 conviction and ordered a new SBM ruling; it also remanded for a new trial on 57286 and otherwise affirmed the 57285 judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for anal penetration	State argues Vanessa testified to penetration; testimony plus expert input supports conviction.	Carter contends penetration was ambiguous; insufficient corroboration.	Sufficient evidence supports penetration finding; no relief.
Exclusion of Stivenson testimony	State argues exclusion of witness did not prejudicially affect defense; testimony not admissible as medical expert.	Carter contends exclusion denied relevant corroboration of Vanessa’s credibility.	Exclusion of testimony affirmed; no error.
Vanessa's statement to Stivenson admissible for substantive purposes	State maintains statement could fall under medical diagnosis/treatment or excited utterance if properly admitted.	Carter asserts statement should be admitted for substantive purposes.	Not admissible for substantive purposes under Rule 803(4) or 803(2).
Failure to instruct on attempted first-degree sexual offense	State contends evidence supported possible attempted offense; trial court should have instructed.	Carter did not oppose submission of lesser included offense, but plain error applies due to conflicting evidence.	Plain error; new trial granted on 08 CrS 57286.
SBM order and lifetime SBM	State argues lifetime SBM appropriate due to offense type.	Carter contests lifetime SBM, seeking proper risk assessment.	SBM order vacated and remanded for proper risk assessment; new SBM proceeding.

State v. Hicks, 319 N.C. 84 (1987) (ambiguity of penetration testimony; requires corroboration)
State v. Norman, 196 N.C. App. 779 (2009) (confidence in testimony of explicit penetration supports conviction)
State v. McCarroll, 336 N.C. 559 (1994) (plain error review for similar instructional error)
State v. Couser, 163 N.C. App. 727 (2004) (instruction on attempted offense when penetration contested)
State v. Johnson, 317 N.C. 417 (1986) (necessity of proper instruction on lesser offenses when evidence supports)
State v. Hinnant, 351 N.C. 277 (2000) (medical-diagnosis exception analysis for child testimony)
State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 559 (1978) (expert testimony admissibility; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Murphy, 100 N.C. App. 33 (1990) (admission of expert testimony on behavior of abused children)
State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76 (1985) (excited utterance doctrine considerations)