State v. Khouri
214 N.C. App. 389
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Indicted in 2009 on multiple counts relating to Tina, Khouri's granddaughter, for acts in 2000–2007 including first-degree sexual offense, indecent liberties with a child, statutory rape, and statutory sexual offense; Jane, Tina's cousin, testified to acts in 2007–2008.
- Trial in Avery County (Criminal Session, March 8, 2010) included extensive testimony of Tina,描述 Tina’s progression from initial touching to vaginal intercourse beginning around age 14; evidence of continued sexual contact into Tina’s late teens; Jane testified to similar acts with defendant.
- Defendant convicted on all counts March 12, 2010; trial court sentenced to six consecutive terms totaling 1296–1614 months, plus lifetime sex offender registration and satellite-based monitoring.
- Defense motions challenged sufficiency of the evidence, admission of Jane’s testimony under Rule 404(b), and expert/rape-shield-related objections.
- North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated one judgment (09-CRS-290) for lack of substantial evidence on date-range (2000) and otherwise affirmed the remaining five judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for charges other than 09-CRS-290 | Khouri argues insufficient evidence. | Khouri contends evidence insufficient for conviction. | Substantial evidence supports charges other than 09-CRS-290. |
| Jurisdiction/venue for 09-CRS-290 | State argues adequate venue; improper date range not proven. | Defense contends insufficient evidence of 2000 date. | 09-CRS-290 vacated for lack of substantial evidence that the crimes occurred in 2000. |
| Admission of Jane's testimony under Rule 404(b) and 403 | Jane's testimony linked to common plan/scheme. | Testimony prejudicial; not sufficiently connected. | Admissible under Rule 404(b) with proper limiting instruction; not plan-free prejudice error. |
| Admission of expert testimony on sexually abused children | Expert testimony supports Tina’s consistency with abuse. | Testimony improperly addressed victim credibility. | No plain error; testimony admissible under Stancil guiding principles. |
| Rape Shield objections to defense witnesses | Rape Shield precludes unrelated sexual-history questions. | Limitations violated rights to defense witnesses. | Rape Shield properly applied; no reversible error; defense rebuttal evidence largely admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ludlum, 303 N.C.666, 281 S.E.2d 159 (1981) (elements of first-degree sexual offense require age difference and sexual act)
- State v. Thaggard, 168 N.C.App. 263, 608 S.E.2d 774 (2005) (indecent liberties elements and age thresholds stated)
- State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 352 S.E.2d 673 (1987) (definitions and scope of indecent liberties and related offenses)
- State v. Carpenter, 361 N.C. 382, 646 S.E.2d 105 (2007) (Rule 404(b) admissibility and relevance standards)
- State v. Stancil, 355 N.C. 266, 559 S.E.2d 788 (2002) (expert testimony on profiles of sexually abused children permissible with foundation)
- State v. Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150, 567 S.E.2d 120 (2002) (strict scrutiny of Rule 404(b) evidence; similarity and temporal proximity)
- State v. Youner, 306 N.C. 692, 295 S.E.2d 453 (1982) (rape shield and admissibility of prior statements (context))