230 N.C. App. 366
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant May appeals a conviction for one count of first-degree statutory rape.
- Two alleged episodes of sexual abuse by May against Tammy (granddaughter) occurred in 2011 when Tammy was ten.
- Evidence includes Tammy’s trial testimony, hospital/medical examinations, and later physician/nurse interviews showing little physical evidence.
- Trial court gave three jury charges; the third explicitly stated a time-limited continuation and referenced expenses of retrial.
- The jury convicted on the Beth bedroom episode but could not reach verdict on the other two charges, resulting in a mistrial for those counts; May was sentenced to 230–285 months.
- On appeal, May argues three main issues: coerced verdict from the third charge, admission of certain expert opinions, and admission of other-crimes evidence; the court grants a new trial due to the third-charge error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third charge violated § 15A-1235 and coerced the verdict | State argues no constitutional violation; harmless error review applies | May contends the third charge coerced a guilty verdict | New trial required; errors not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Proper standard of appellate review for the charged error | State relies on plain error due to failure to object | May invokes harmless-error review under Article I, §24 | Harmless-error review used; new trial ordered on overall impact |
| Admission of expert testimony by Dr. Hagele and Ms. Wheeler | State contends testimony as admissible to describe symptoms/characteristics of abuse | May argues expert testimony improperly opined Tammy was sexually abused | No plain error; admissible to describe symptoms/characteristics, not to prove abuse as fact |
| Admission of other-crimes evidence (untested conduct with Tammy/Beth) | State admissible to show context/motive/plan under Rule 404(b) | May argues evidence is irrelevant/prejudicial | No error; admissible as part of context and for common plan; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Easterling, 300 N.C. 594 (1980) (deadlock instruction standards under § 15A-1235)
- State v. Lipfird, 302 N.C. 391 (1981) (warning about retrial timing/expense improper)
- State v. Aikens, 342 N.C. 567 (1996) (requirement to give complete § 15A-1235(b) instructions when used)
- State v. Patterson, 332 N.C. 409 (1992) (totality-of-circumstances approach in reviewing charges)
- State v. Wilson, 363 N.C. 478 (2009) (preservation of §24 issues where unanimous verdict is required)
- State v. Bussey, 321 N.C. 92 (1987) (plain-error review for constitutional instructional issues)
- State v. Ashe, 314 N.C. 28 (1985) (recognition that some §24 issues preserved on appeal)