State v. Goins, 244 N.C. App. 499

Background

Gary Scott Goins, former high-school teacher and wrestling coach at East Gaston High (1993–2013), was convicted of multiple sex offenses arising from repeated abuse of student wrestlers (Allen, Brad, Carl) over roughly a decade; convictions included indecent liberties, sexual activity with a student, statutory sexual offense, and crimes against nature.
Complainants described recurring "mental training" sessions, travel- and hotel‑trip incidents, forced nudity, gagging/humiliation hazing, choking maneuvers, oral and anal sex, and coerced ingestion of ejaculate; other former wrestlers corroborated pervasive hazing and grooming‑style conduct.
Defendant denied sexual contact but admitted rough hazing/horseplay; he argued much misconduct was wrestler‑initiated and not sexual.
Trial evidence included witness testimony (complainants and other wrestlers), a police interview video, and Defendant’s testimony; Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms and ordered to register as a sex offender.
On appeal Defendant challenged: (1) denial of motion to dismiss one crimes‑against‑nature count (location issue); (2) admissibility of broad hazing evidence under Rules 404(b) and 403; and (3) exclusion of cross‑examination about a witness’s possible bias (porn addiction, affair, military consequences).

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Sufficiency of evidence that the "ice‑cream cone" oral‑sex incident occurred in NC (motion to dismiss 13 CRS 57120)	Testimony (and recorded police interview) place the incident in the complainant’s bedroom in Gaston County; jury may resolve inconsistencies.	Complainant waffled about location (could have been Fargo, ND); insufficient proof the act occurred in NC.	Denial of dismissal affirmed — substantial evidence (including videotaped interview) supported venue in NC.
2) Admissibility of widespread hazing testimony under Rule 404(b)	Hazing evidence shows intent, plan, grooming, victim selection, and explains victims’ submission/silence; admissible to provide context.	Evidence only showed propensity for bad behavior; lacks sufficient similarity to charged sexual acts and is unduly prejudicial.	Admitted: 404(b) and its exceptions allow evidence of non‑sexual misconduct when probative of plan/grooming; court did not err in admitting hazing.
3) Hazing testimony exclusion challenge under Rule 403 (undue prejudice/confusing the issues)	Testimony was probative to explain systemic pattern and victims’ vulnerability; not excessive relative to breadth of charges.	Testimony produced mini‑trials of collateral conduct, unduly prejudicial and confusing.	No abuse of discretion — probative value of hazing evidence outweighed prejudice given scope and context.
4) Exclusion of cross‑examination on Brad’s alleged porn addiction and affair (bias evidence) under Rules 401/412/403	Evidence implicated complainant sexual behavior; Rape Shield limits apply; State argued exclusion appropriate.	Evidence was relevant to impeachment/bias (to explain motive to fabricate, protect marriage and military career); not barred by Rape Shield per precedent.	Trial court erred in excluding under Rules 401 and 412 and also abused discretion under Rule 403; but error was not prejudicial given overwhelming corroborating evidence, so no new trial on that basis.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Moore, 770 S.E.2d 131 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing denial of motion to dismiss; substantial evidence test)
State v. Hunt, 722 S.E.2d 484 (N.C. 2012) (substantial‑evidence/weight distinction)
State v. Beckelheimer, 726 S.E.2d 156 (N.C. 2012) (Rule 404(b)/403 review standard)
State v. Agee, 391 S.E.2d 171 (N.C. 1990) (404(b) admits acts that complete the story/context)
State v. Williams, 350 S.E.2d 353 (N.C. 1986) (prior non‑consensual or pornographic acts admissible to show plan/grooming)
State v. Paddock, 696 S.E.2d 529 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (404(b) evidence of abuse of other children admissible to show scheme/pattern)
State v. Simpson, 255 S.E.2d 147 (N.C. 1979) (prejudice from introducing collateral, irrelevant sexual misconduct; grounds for new trial)
State v. Martin, 774 S.E.2d 330 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015) (Rape Shield Statute not sole test for admissibility; bias/motive impeachment may be admissible)
Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1988) (Confrontation cross‑examination rights re: witness bias; limits but must allow meaningful impeachment)
State v. Lewis, 724 S.E.2d 492 (N.C. 2012) (trial court abused discretion by excluding bias evidence affecting credibility)
State v. Edmonds, 713 S.E.2d 111 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (Rape Shield does not automatically bar all sexual‑history evidence; exclude when little probative link to charged act)