State v. Crabtree, 249 N.C. App. 395

In late 2013 ten-year-old L.R. moved in with her grandmother and William Crabtree; she later alleged repeated sexual abuse by Crabtree, including digital penetration, rubbing, licking, and that he put his penis in her mouth.
L.R., her younger brother D.J., and the grandmother each testified to observing sexualized contact by Crabtree; the grandmother testified she found Crabtree with his hands between L.R.’s legs on 29 November 2013 (the charged date).
A recorded police interview of L.R. describing fellatio was admitted and played for the jury without objection; a medical exam found no physical trauma but clinic staff classified L.R.’s account as a “clear disclosure.”
Crabtree was indicted on first-degree sexual offense (child under 13), indecent liberties with a child, and crime against nature; he was convicted on all counts and appealed.
On appeal Crabtree argued (1) certain witnesses (the clinic pediatrician Dr. St. Claire, the clinic interviewer Snyder, and DSS worker Royster) impermissibly vouched for L.R.’s credibility (and alternatively that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting), and (2) the court improperly submitted first-degree sexual offense on a theory (fellatio) not supported by the evidence.

Issue	State's Argument	Crabtree's Argument	Held
Whether testimony impermissibly vouched for the child-victim’s credibility	Testimony described evaluation/process and symptom consistency; any evaluative remarks were harmless given independent eyewitness corroboration	Dr. St. Claire (expert) and two non-experts vouched for L.R.; such credibility testimony is inadmissible; failure to object was ineffective assistance	Court: Snyder and Royster did not impermissibly vouch; Dr. St. Claire’s statements did impermissibly vouch but admission was not prejudicial given independent eyewitness evidence (grandmother and brother); IAC claim fails because no prejudice shown
Whether submission of first-degree sex offense on a fellatio theory was unsupported	The recorded interview of L.R. describing fellatio was admitted as substantive evidence and supports the fellatio theory	No in-court testimony described fellatio; only out-of-court references existed, so fellatio was not a proper basis to submit first-degree sex offense	Court: Recording of L.R.’s interview (played for jury without objection) included explicit description of fellatio; fellatio was supported as substantive evidence and submission was proper

State v. Bailey, 89 N.C. App. 212 (expert may not testify that a witness is believable)
State v. Aguallo, 318 N.C. 590 (expert testimony that a child is "believable" is inadmissible)
State v. Dick, 126 N.C. App. 312 (expert affirmation of abuse without physical evidence evaluates veracity and is impermissible)
State v. Stancil, 355 N.C. 266 (expert may testify about profiles/symptoms consistent with abuse but not vouch for credibility)
State v. Ryan, 223 N.C. App. 325 (discusses prejudice analysis when expert vouches and the State’s case rests on child’s testimony)
State v. Sprouse, 217 N.C. App. 230 (impermissible vouching can be harmless where independent evidence supports conviction)
State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431 (plain error requires showing probable impact on jury verdict)