State v. GodbeyÂ, 250 N.C. App. 424

Defendant Ronnie Paul Godbey was indicted for multiple sexual-offense counts based on his daughter Stephanie’s allegations that he repeatedly molested her from about age 10 through 18; one indecent-liberties conviction was returned.
Stephanie told her grandfather she had been abused; the pastor and a detective became involved; Karen (defendant’s wife and Stephanie’s stepmother) gave multiple statements to police describing a sexual act she and defendant engaged in (defendant rubbing his penis between her buttocks until ejaculation).
Karen initially signed a statement describing the act similarly to Stephanie’s allegation; later she amended her account to say the act began after 2008 and occurred consensually because intercourse was painful.
At trial the court admitted Karen’s testimony and the detective’s testimony about Karen’s statements over defendant’s objections invoking the marital-communications privilege (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-57(c)).
The trial court held § 8-57.1 (husband-wife privilege waived in child-abuse cases) applied and also admitted the evidence under Rule 404(b) as showing modus operandi/plan; defendant appealed on privilege and Rules 401/403/404(b) grounds.

Issue	State's Argument	Godbey's Argument	Held
Whether § 8-57.1 waives the marital-communications privilege so the wife’s sexual-history statements are admissible in a criminal prosecution for child sexual abuse	§ 8-57.1 abrogates the husband-wife privilege for evidence regarding abuse/neglect of a child in judicial proceedings related to child-abuse reports; read with § 7B-310 it applies broadly to child-abuse prosecutions	§ 8-57.1 is limited to judicial proceedings that "result from" a child-abuse report and does not authorize admission here; marital privilege still protects communications	Court: § 8-57.1 applies to judicial proceedings related to child-abuse reports and, read with § 7B-310 and relevant precedent, permits admission; no privilege error
Whether evidence of consensual spousal sexual activity was admissible under Rules 401/404(b)/403 (similarity, temporal proximity, and unfair prejudice)	Evidence was relevant and admissible to show common scheme/plan/modus operandi and intent; probative value outweighed prejudice	Evidence was not sufficiently similar or temporally proximate and was unfairly prejudicial; admission required a new trial	Court: Sufficient similarity (unique act), remoteness affects weight not admissibility, and probative value not substantially outweighed prejudice; no abuse of discretion

Rollins v. State, 363 N.C. 232 (N.C. 2009) (explains marital-communications privilege scope and confidentiality factors)
Freeman v. State, 302 N.C. 591 (N.C. 1981) (modifies spouse-testimony common-law rule; discusses confidential-communication requirement)
Wright v. Wright, 281 N.C. 159 (N.C. 1972) (recognizes spousal sex as covered by marital-communications privilege)
Holmes v. State, 330 N.C. 826 (N.C. 1992) (interprets §§ 8-57 and 8-57.1 in context of spousal testimony and privilege exceptions)
Etheridge v. State, 319 N.C. 34 (N.C. 1987) (addresses interaction of privilege-exception statutes in child-abuse contexts)