State v. Davis, 368 N.C. 794

Defendant Randy Carter Davis was convicted of multiple sexual offenses alleged by two stepdaughters, G.S. and L.W.; convictions affirmed by a jury and the Court of Appeals.
G.S. reported long‑term abuse beginning in childhood but first reported to authorities decades later (police report in 2011); she had previously disclosed to a psychiatrist (Dr. Vikram Shukla, treating in 2006) and a therapist (Sandra Chrysler, 2013).
The State tendered Dr. Shukla (psychiatry) and Ms. Chrysler (mental‑health counseling) as experts; both testified about their treatment of G.S. and then offered generalized testimony about characteristics of child sexual‑abuse victims and reasons for delayed reporting.
Defendant objected at trial that those generalized expert statements were undisclosed opinion testimony in violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A‑903(a)(2); the trial court initially limited opinions but ultimately allowed some general testimony and found the experts’ CVs sufficient disclosure.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the generalized testimony constituted discoverable expert opinion under § 15A‑903(a)(2), concluded the State failed to disclose required opinion summaries and bases, but held defendant failed to show statutory prejudice given overwhelming corroborating evidence.

Issue	State's Argument	Davis's Argument	Held
Whether generalized testimony about characteristics of child sexual‑abuse victims and reasons for delayed reporting is expert opinion requiring disclosure under N.C.G.S. § 15A‑903(a)(2)	Testimony was factual "observations," not expert opinion requiring pretrial summaries	Such generalized inferences are expert opinions; statute required disclosure of the opinion and its basis	The testimony constituted expert opinion and should have been disclosed; the State violated § 15A‑903(a)(2)
Whether the nondisclosure was prejudicial requiring reversal	Disclosure of CVs and records cured any unfair surprise; no reversible error	Failure to disclose deprived Davis of ability to prepare and thus was prejudicial	Although nondisclosure was error, Davis failed to show a reasonable possibility of a different outcome; convictions affirmed (modified Court of Appeals decision)

State v. Jackson, 340 N.C. 301 (discusses trial court discretion in discovery sanctions)
State v. Payne, 327 N.C. 194 (discovery protects defendant from unfair surprise)
State v. Brogden, 334 N.C. 39 (reviewability when court refuses to exercise discretion)
State v. Patterson, 335 N.C. 437 (statutory interpretation and review standards)
State v. Moncree, 188 N.C. App. 221 (reminder that State should comply with discovery statutes)
State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76 (distinguishes lay instant perceptions from expert opinion)