State v. MendozaÂ, 250 N.C. App. 731

Background

Defendant Eliazar Juan Mendoza was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his daughter G.J., including first-degree rape, first-degree sexual offense, felonious child abuse, and indecent liberties; sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 288–355 months each.
G.J. reported repeated intrafamilial sexual assaults beginning at age nine; physical exam and STI testing years later were normal; she later disclosed the abuse to her mother and police.
The State designated three expert witnesses (Dr. Goodpasture, Cynthia Stewart, Blair Cobb): a pediatric sexual-abuse examiner, a social worker/forensic interviewer, and a clinical social worker/therapist who diagnosed PTSD.
Defense sought discovery of experts’ reports; some materials (Stewart’s report, Cobb’s treatment notes, DVD of interview) were produced in February 2015. Defense moved to exclude the experts or obtain a continuance for late materials; the court granted a continuance to April.
At trial the court excluded three letters to the editor by Stewart (older writings) and excluded evidence of the victim’s sexual history under the rape‑shield rule; allowed Stewart and Cobb to testify as experts (Cobb testified she diagnosed PTSD) with a limiting instruction that PTSD evidence was for corroboration and to explain behavior, not proof of the charged acts.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Exclusion of Cynthia Stewart’s published letters (bias evidence)	Letters were not probative of bias relevant to the allegations and were cumulative; trial court’s exclusion under Rule 403 proper	Letters showed advocacy bias and should have been admitted to impeach Stewart	Affirmed — letters excluded but error, if any, harmless; Stewart’s testimony already showed her passion/bias so no reasonable possibility of different result
2) Late disclosure of expert reports (Statutory disclosure under N.C.G.S. §15A‑903)	State gave notice of experts and ultimately produced reports/DVD; court granted a continuance when defense complained of late materials	Late piecemeal disclosures prejudiced ability to prepare and required exclusion of expert testimony or other sanction	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; continuance was an appropriate sanction and cured unfair surprise
3) Cobb’s testimony diagnosing victim with PTSD (vouching/corroboration)	Cobb was qualified to diagnose PTSD; testimony admissible to corroborate victim and explain behavior with limiting instruction	PTSD diagnosis impermissibly vouched for victim’s credibility and amounted to improper corroboration	Affirmed — defendant failed to preserve the specific vouching objection at trial; limiting instruction given; no plain‑error argument raised
4) Exclusion of victim’s sexual history (Rule 412 rape‑shield)	Sexual history was irrelevant to Cobb’s PTSD diagnosis in this case; Rule 412 exclusion appropriate	Sexual history was relevant to impeach/cast doubt and to probe expert bases (Rule 702/705)	Affirmed — court conducted voir dire; experts said sexual history did not affect diagnosis, so court reasonably found testimony irrelevant and excluded it; no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

State v. King, 366 N.C. 68 (N.C. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 (N.C. 2010) (trial court rulings on admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Cook, 193 N.C. App. 179 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (last‑minute expert disclosure may require continuance or exclusion)
State v. Beach, 333 N.C. 733 (N.C. 1993) (erroneous exclusion of evidence is harmless where similar evidence was elicited)
State v. Blankenship, 178 N.C. App. 351 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) (disclosure rules and review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Herring, 322 N.C. 733 (N.C. 1988) (sanctions for discovery failures lie within trial court’s discretion)
State v. McDougald, 38 N.C. App. 244 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978) (available sanctions for discovery violations include continuance or exclusion)
State v. Moncree, 188 N.C. App. 221 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (expert opinion is subject to disclosure requirements)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (N.C. 2012) (plain‑error review limited to issues properly preserved and specifically argued)