State v. SingletaryÂ, 247 N.C. App. 368

Background

Victim (J.K.) lived with mother and Defendant (Christopher Singletary) from ages ~3–7; alleged repeated sexual abuse beginning at age 4, including anal intercourse and forced oral sex; medical exam showed two anal tears and one sperm on inside of underwear.
Forensics: serologist found a single sperm on rectal area of underwear; pediatrician testified it was extremely unlikely the sperm was from the child.
Trial: jury convicted Defendant of sexual offense of a child by substitute parent, indecent liberties with a child, and two counts of sexual offense with a child (adult offender).
At trial defense attempted to elicit compensation information for the State’s counselor witness (paid from NC Victim Compensation fund); court sustained objection to the amount question but jurors heard that victim’s compensation paid the counselor.
Defense requested pattern instruction on interested witness; court denied but gave an alternate instruction addressing bias/interest in substance.
Sentencing: court applied N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.4A(c) to impose consecutive terms above the Structured Sentencing presumptive maximum based on judge-found “egregious aggravation”; defendant appealed arguing Sixth Amendment/Apprendi-type violations.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Singletary's Argument	Held
Whether cross-examination into expert's compensation amount was properly barred	Objectionable/relevance; disclosure not required	Counsel should probe amount to test witness partiality/interest	Court erred in sustaining objection to amount question, but error harmless on the record (source was revealed and other overwhelming evidence)
Whether trial court erred in refusing N.C.P.I. 104.20 (interested witness)	Alternate instruction sufficiently covered bias/interest	Requested pattern instruction should have been given	No reversible error — court’s charge covered interest/bias in substance; defendant failed to show jury was misled
Whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.4A(c) violates the Sixth Amendment (Apprendi/Blakely line) by allowing judge-found “egregious aggravation” to increase sentence beyond statutory maximum without jury	State ultimately conceded error but argued concession obviated need to reach statute’s validity; suggested jury could decide via special verdict	Statute permits judge alone to find egregious aggravation without notice, jury submission, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt — violates Apprendi/Blakely/Cunningham	§ 14-27.4A(c) is unconstitutional as applied: it allows judge-found factors to increase sentence beyond the statutory maximum without jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt; special-verdict argument rejected because statute vests the power in “the court”
Whether the Apprendi/Blakely error was harmless with respect to this sentencing result	State conceded error but urged harmlessness	Defendant argued sentencing error was not harmless because judge found egregious aggravation without jury or notice	Error was not harmless; court vacated sentence and remanded for new sentencing hearing

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact other than prior conviction that increases penalty beyond prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes is the maximum a judge may impose solely on jury-verdict facts; judge-found facts that increase sentence violate Sixth Amendment)
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) (Apprendi/Blakely principles applied to California sentencing procedure)
Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) (failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury is subject to harmless-error review)
State v. Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41 (2006) (applying Recuenco; sentencing-factor omissions reviewed for harmless error)
State v. Cummings, 352 N.C. 600 (2000) (expert witness compensation is a proper subject of cross-examination to test partiality)
State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 (1949) (same: compensation may bear on witness interest/credibility)