State v. SpinksÂ
256 N.C. App. 596
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim Amy (13) alleged Defendant Daris Spinks sexually assaulted her twice in December 2014 (vaginal intercourse and cunnilingus), threatened her, and bribed her with shoes to delete a recording; she later reported the assaults.
- Child witness Katy (6 in 2011) testified under Rule 404(b) that Defendant entered her bedroom at night, raped her, and paid her a dollar for silence; the State offered this to show a common scheme.
- Dr. Stacy Thomas (pediatrician) examined Amy, found normal physical findings but observed emotional signs; her report described Amy’s disclosures as "consistent and compelling."
- Jury convicted Defendant of multiple sexual offenses against a 13‑year‑old; trial court sentenced consecutive lengthy prison terms, lifetime sex‑offender registration, and lifetime satellite‑based monitoring (SBM).
- On appeal Defendant challenged (1) admission of Katy’s 404(b) testimony, (2) admission of Dr. Thomas’s expert testimony and report (and raised ineffective‑assistance claims), and (3) constitutionality/reasonableness of lifetime SBM as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Katy's testimony under Rule 404(b) | 404(b) evidence shows common scheme/plan (identity, plan, similar modus operandi) | Testimony too dissimilar (age, act type, circumstances) and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Admitted: similarities (female victims, intercourse, nighttime, guest in home, post‑assault bribe) made evidence relevant to scheme; Rule 403 not abused |
| Admission of Dr. Thomas's report language ("consistent and compelling") | Expert testimony about symptoms consistent with abuse supports State; not vouching if properly limited | Phrases impermissibly bolstered victim credibility; report improperly vouched and should be plain error; counsel ineffective for failing to object | No plain error: doctor did not give a conclusory opinion that abuse occurred; statements did not probably alter verdict; IAC claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Expert offering opinion that "child sexual abuse" occurred | State relied on expert foundation to explain typical symptoms and demeanor | Defendant argued expert cannot opine that abuse occurred absent physical evidence and this improperly vouched | Not plain error: expert limited to characteristics and observations; did not impermissibly state abuse occurred |
| Lifetime satellite‑based monitoring (SBM) as applied / Fourth Amendment | State must prove SBM is a reasonable search under Grady; trial court failed to develop record | Defendant contended SBM was unreasonable as applied and required constitutional review | Appeal of SBM dismissed as waived: Defendant raised no constitutional objection at sentencing; certiorari allowed but review declined; concurrence noted policy concerns about early SBM hearings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127 (Rule 404(b) inclusion and admissibility standards)
- State v. Gray, 210 N.C. App. 493 (limitations on 404(b) when similarities are common to many cases)
- State v. Towe, 366 N.C. 56 (expert testimony may not state abuse occurred absent foundation; impermissible vouching)
- State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201 (404(b) admissible if relevant for purpose other than propensity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (modern technology and privacy considerations in search analysis)