State v. King, 366 N.C. 68

Background

Defendant indicted for first degree rape in 2005 and later for felony child abuse, incest, and indecent liberties with a child based on allegations by his daughter who, after medical evaluation, developed conversion disorder and memories of abuse.
The victim began recalling an event at age seven during a therapy session; memory included a rape by defendant; led to further DSS investigation and indictments.
Defendant moved to exclude testimony on repressed/recovered/traumatic amnesia and related terms, arguing unreliability and controversy in science; cited Howerton for admissibility standards.
State proposed expert witnesses Dr. Chu and Dr. Runyan; defendant presented Dr. Pope at suppression hearing; trial court conducted an evidentiary suppression hearing in April 2010.
Trial court granted suppression, concluding Howerton satisfied but Rule 403 outweighed probative value due to potential prejudice and confusion; written order followed.
Court of Appeals affirmed suppression; State appealed on whether Barrett v. Hyldburg compelled expert accompaniment; majority held trial court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Howerton 702/403 analysis supported suppression	King argued admissibility should be allowed given Howerton factors and scientific debate.	King contends repressed memory lacks reliable scientific basis and should be excluded under 403.	No abuse of discretion; suppression affirmed due to Rule 403 balancing.
Barrett v. Hyldburg requirement for accompanying expert testimony	State urged Barrett requires expert testimony to explain recovered memories to jurors.	Defendant urged Barrett should not dictate admissibility gatekeeping and weight.	Barrett’s accompanying-expert requirement disavowed; lay testimony may be admissible with expert context if proper under 702/403.
Whether the trial court properly weighed probative value against prejudice under Rule 403	Prosecution argued memories may be probative despite controversy.	Defense argued prejudice and confusion outweighed any probative value.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; allowed balancing under 403 and suppressed testimony.
Impact of 2011 Rule 702 amendments on this case	Amendments align with Federal Rule; this case decided under prior version.	Amendments could affect future admissibility standard.	Not necessary to decide; amendments acknowledged but not applied here.
Remand possibility for retrial with lay recollections	Victim may testify to recollections, and trial court may revisit Rule 403 analysis.	Trial strategy could involve experts addressing recollection.	Remand permitted; Barrett’s strict rule rejected; court may reconsider admissibility consistent with opinion.

Key Cases Cited

Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 597 S.E.2d 674 (2004) (admissibility test for expert testimony (Howerton three-prong).)
State v. Goode, 341 N.C. 513, 461 S.E.2d 631 (1995) (three-part framework for expert admissibility.)
Barrett v. Hyldburg, 127 N.C. App. 95, 487 S.E.2d 803 (1997) (repressed-memory testimony requires accompanying expert testimony (civil case).)
Crocker v. Roethling, 363 N.C. 140, 675 S.E.2d 625 (2009) (affirming trial-court gatekeeping duties in expert admissibility.)
State v. Wise, 326 N.C. 421, 390 S.E.2d 142 (1990) (deference to trial court on admissibility of expert testimony.)
State v. King, 287 N.C. 645, 215 S.E.2d 540 (1975) (trial courts ordinarily control admission of expert testimony.)
State v. Coffey, 345 N.C. 389, 480 S.E.2d 664 (1997) (Rule 403 balancing law.)
State v. Anderson, 322 N.C. 22, 366 S.E.2d 459 (1988) (abuse-of-discretion standard for expert-admissibility determinations.)