State v. Clapp, 235 N.C. App. 351

Background

Defendant Robert Clapp, a volunteer/paid "first responder" (athletic trainer) at Walter Williams High School, was tried for statutory sexual offense (13–15-year-old) and indecent liberties for touching three female students during treatment sessions.
Victims (Hailey, Amy, Mandy) described massage/stretches in the training/field house where Defendant’s fingers went beneath underwear; Hailey alleged digital vaginal penetration; others described contact with labia/bikini line.
Defendant denied any intentional sexual contact, claiming any contact was accidental; he presented testimony about his training, routine treatment practices, and numerous character witnesses attesting to honesty/trustworthiness.
First trial ended in mistrial; at retrial the State elected to proceed only on counts alleging conduct while Defendant acted as a first responder; jury convicted on statutory sexual offense and indecent liberties; judgment later entered and Defendant appealed.
On appeal Defendant challenged: (1) denial of an accident jury instruction, (2) exclusion of a witness’s testimony that he lacked an "unnatural lust" for children, and (3) refusal to instruct jury that character evidence for honesty/trustworthiness could be considered substantively.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Clapp's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing requested N.C.P.J.I. accident instruction	No—record lacked substantial evidence of accidental digital penetration; court later instructed jury that conduct must be intentional, curing any error	Trial court should have given N.C.P.J.I. 307.11 because there was evidence (Defendant’s statements and victim’s speculation) supporting accidental penetration	Affirmed—no error: record did not support full accident instruction; jury was told during deliberations that conduct must be intentional, rendering any error harmless
Whether exclusion of testimony that Defendant lacked an "unnatural lust" for children was erroneous	No—such testimony amounts to proof of normality, not a pertinent character trait, and is inadmissible	Testimony was relevant to a specific character trait closely related to the crimes (sexual interest in children) and thus admissible	Affirmed—trial court properly excluded the testimony as it attested only to normalcy rather than a pertinent trait
Whether court erred by refusing to instruct jury that honesty/trustworthiness evidence could be considered substantively	No—honesty/trustworthiness are not "pertinent" traits to sexual offenses against minors and thus should not be instructed as reducing likelihood of committing these crimes	Requested N.C.P.J.I. 105.60 was supported by testimony that Defendant was honest/trustworthy and should be given as accurate statement of law	Affirmed—honesty/trustworthiness do not bear on propensity to commit the charged sexual offenses; instruction properly refused

Key Cases Cited

State v. Osorio, 196 N.C. App. 458 (standard of review for jury instructions) (discussing de novo review)
State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 (de novo review explanation)
State v. Castaneda, 196 N.C. App. 109 (prejudice standard for instructional error)
State v. Thompson, 118 N.C. App. 33 (rule that correct, evidence-supported special instructions must be given)
State v. Tidwell, 112 N.C. App. 770 (instructional-request precedent)
State v. Rogers, 299 N.C. 597 (harmlessness/correction by subsequent jury instruction)
State v. Wagoner, 131 N.C. App. 285 (exclusion of evidence showing defendant’s normal psychological make-up)
State v. Holder, 331 N.C. 462 (substantial conformity requirement for requested instructions)
State v. Bogle, 324 N.C. 190 (honesty/truthfulness not a pertinent trait for certain crimes)