State v. RorieÂ, 242 N.C. App. 655

Background

Defendant Thedford R. Rorie, Jr. was charged with rape of a child, taking indecent liberties, three counts of sexual offense with a child, and habitual felon status based on allegations by a then-six-year-old child, A.P.; jury convicted and defendant sentenced to aggravated prison terms and lifetime registration/monitoring.
Alleged primary incident: November 2011 night when defendant babysat; A.P. testified defendant penetrated her vaginally and anally and had prior oral acts. Physical exam months later showed a hymenal notch the examiner said could be consistent with penetrating injury.
Defendant testified in his defense and denied the allegations; he claimed other adults were present and offered alternative explanations for the children’s activities that night.
Defendant sought to introduce (1) testimony that he found A.P. watching a pornographic DVD (to show an alternate source for A.P.’s sexual knowledge) and (2) evidence of prior inconsistent statements by A.P. accusing two boys in the household. The trial court excluded both categories of evidence.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held the exclusions were erroneous and granted a new trial, explaining the pornographic-viewing evidence was not barred by Rule 412 and prior inconsistent statements may be admissible for impeachment and are not per se within Rule 412.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of evidence that A.P. viewed pornographic DVD	Evidence is "sexual activity" barred by Rape Shield (Rule 412) and/or irrelevant	Evidence is not sexual activity; it explains alternative source of sexual knowledge and is relevant impeachment evidence	Reversed — evidence that child viewed porn is not barred by Rule 412 per Court; admissibility should be assessed under relevance and Rule 403 balancing; exclusion prejudiced defendant and requires new trial
Admissibility of prior allegations/inconsistent statements by A.P. concerning two boys	Statements involve sexual topics and Fall within Rule 412; therefore irrelevant	Prior inconsistent allegations are impeachment (false accusations), not "sexual activity," and are admissible to attack credibility	Reversed as to Rule 412: prior allegations/inconsistent statements are not automatically barred by Rule 412 and may be admissible subject to Rule 403 balancing on retrial
Whether the trial court properly relied on Yearwood/Bass to exclude evidence	Trial court correctly followed precedent excluding similar evidence	Precedents are distinguishable; Yearwood and Bass do not require exclusion here	Court distinguishes Yearwood and Bass and finds those cases inapplicable to the porn-viewing evidence
Cumulative error claim	N/A	Exclusion of both items combined denied a fair trial	Court did not reach a separate cumulative-error holding because each evidentiary error warranted a new trial; new trial granted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Yearwood, 147 N.C. App. 662 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) (discusses limits on cross-examination and admissibility in sexual-assault cases)
State v. Bass, 121 N.C. App. 306 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996) (applied rape-shield principles to exclude evidence of prior similar abuse)
State v. Guthrie, 110 N.C. App. 91 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (permitted impeachment evidence that was not "sexual activity" under Rule 412)
People v. Mason, 578 N.E.2d 1351 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (held viewing porn by a young child was not "sexual activity" barred by rape-shield and could be admitted to show alternative source of sexual knowledge)
State v. Younger, 306 N.C. 692 (N.C. 1982) (permitted prior inconsistent statements for impeachment despite rape-shield concerns)