223 N.C. App. 325
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Steven Franklin Ryan was convicted of one count of first-degree sex offense and two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child.
- The convictions arose from alleged sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl who lived with defendant and her grandmother, Allen, in a three-bedroom trailer.
- The child disclosed acts of sexual abuse over several years; investigators and Dr. Gutman conducted interviews and medical evaluations.
- Dr. Gutman, an expert in child maltreatment, testified at trial and provided opinion-based conclusions about abuse and perpetrator.
- After three deadlock indications, the trial court denied a mistrial; the jury ultimately convicted on three counts and acquitted on two.
- The court sentenced defendant, ordered sex-offender registration and lifetime SBM, and this appeal followed seeking review of these rulings and related evidentiary issues, culminating in a new trial order based on plain-error vouching testimony by Dr. Gutman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deadlocked jury coercion and mistrial rulings | State contends trial court failures regarding deadlock are reversible error | Ryan contends coercive actions and mistrial denial harmed his rights | Not decided on appeal (issues not likely to recur) |
| Vouching by expert for credibility of child | Gutman testimony admissible with proper foundation | Testimony improperly bolstered the child’s credibility | Plain error; new trial ordered |
| Expert testimony about whether child was not coached | Not improper since door opened via defense cross-examination | Testimony improper as to credibility; door-opening insufficient | Plain error; vacate for new trial |
| Perpetrator identification by expert | Gutman’s conclusion no other perpetrator supported the State’s case | Opinion on perpetrator credibility improper | Plain error; new trial ordered |
| Living-with-granddaughter testimony | Evidence relevant to witnesses’ motivations for reporting | Not relevant/inadmissible; redaction advised | Not plain error; redaction suggested; remains moot after new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dixon, 150 N.C. App. 46, 563 S.E.2d 594 (N.C. App. 2002) (expert testimony cannot establish victim credibility)
- State v. Baymon, 336 N.C. 748, 446 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 1994) (not coaching is admissible under certain circumstances; door control rules apply)
- Brigman v. Brigman, 178 N.C. App. 78, 632 S.E.2d 498 (N.C. App. 2006) (expert opinion regarding credibility of victims improper)
- Figured v. State, 116 N.C. App. 1, 446 S.E.2d 838 (N.C. App. 1994) (expert opinion that children were sexually abused by defendant improper)
- Aguallo v. State, 322 N.C. 818, 370 S.E.2d 676 (N.C. 1988) (reversible error for expert to vouch credibility)
- State v. Heath, 316 N.C. 337, 341 S.E.2d 565 (N.C. 1986) (prohibited expert testimony on victim credibility)
- State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 300 S.E.2d 375 (N.C. 1983) (plain-error standard for prejudicial evidentiary error)