State v. Dew
225 N.C. App. 750
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Dew was convicted on six counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor involving Becky and Violet, the two sisters.
- Becky (born 1995) and Violet (born 1993) testified to extensive sexual abuse by Dew beginning when Becky was 5–6 and continuing to age 12.
- The abuse allegedly occurred at family gatherings at Dew’s home and during isolated times; some incidents involved touching and pornography exposure.
- Becky's and Violet's mother, Angela M., testified she believed the girls, and a family therapist testified about the children’s symptoms.
- Dew contends trial errors include improper vouching/credibility testimony, exclusion of his cooperation evidence, and improper expert testimony; he also asserts ineffective assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Angela M.'s belief statements | Dew argues the belief statement was improper | Dew argues it was inadmissible to bolster credibility | Plain error not shown; testimony incidental and unlikely to affect verdict |
| Detective Curry's credibility vouching | Detective Curry vouched for victims' credibility | Testimony improperly affirmed victims' credibility via expert-like statements | No reversible error; context showed non-impermissible description of demeanor; invited error notion applies to part of cross-exam |
| Defendant's cooperation evidence | Trial court erred by excluding cooperation evidence with Detective Curry | Such evidence should have been admitted to show cooperation | No relief; lack of offer of proof prevented prejudice determination |
| Ms. Hollandsworth as expert and vouching | Ms. Hollandsworth properly qualified as expert and admissible; no improper vouching | Expert lacked reliability and vouched for credibility | Expert qualified; testimony did not improperly vouch for credibility |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel errors prejudiced defendant | Ineffective assistance claims; errors affected outcome | No relief; no demonstrated prejudice; proper preservation lacking in some aspects |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mendoza, 206 N.C. App. 391, 698 S.E.2d 170 (2010) (plain error standard for unpreserved issues)
- State v. Aguallo, 318 N.C. 590, 350 S.E.2d 76 (1986) (expert testimony about victim believability improper)
- State v. Waddell, 130 N.C. App. 488, 504 S.E.2d 84 (1998) (short-hand statements of fact admissible in child testimony contexts)
- State v. Love, 100 N.C. App. 226, 395 S.E.2d 429 (1990) (admissibility of expert testimony about child abuse symptoms)
- State v. Gobal, 186 N.C. App. 308, 651 S.E.2d 279 (2007) (permitted use of expert observations as facts in testimony)