217 N.C. App. 230
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sprouse was convicted on 22 September 2010 of five counts of statutory rape, four counts of statutory sex offense, nine counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, and nine counts of sexual activity by a substitute parent committed against A.B.
- A.B., born September 25, 1992, began living with Sprouse in 2005 when she was about 13 years old and regarded him as a father figure.
- From December 2005 to March 2006, A.B. testified Sprouse engaged in multiple sexual acts with her, including anal, oral, and vaginal contact, despite her protests.
- DSS investigated the allegations in 2009; Opalewski of BCDSS substantiated the claims following interviews and collateral checks.
- Sprouse and Raquel allegedly drafted a plan to tattoo each other’s genitals to discredit A.B.’s allegations, and Raquel later testified about the tattoos; evidence showed no tattoo on Sprouse as of January 2007.
- Sprouse challenged SBM orders on appeal; the trial court ordered lifetime SBM, which this court partially affirmed and partially reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to dismiss anal penetration | State contends substantial evidence showed anal penetration. | Sprouse argues no anal penetration was proven. | Denial of dismissal upheld; substantial evidence shown. |
| Sequestration of witnesses | State contends no abuse of discretion in denying sequestration. | Sprouse asserts prejudice from non-sequestration. | Denial of sequestration affirmed. |
| Lifetime SBM as aggravated offense | State argues statutory rape/offense qualifies as aggravated offense for SBM. | Sprouse contends offenses beyond habitual aggravated category. | Statutory rape convictions are aggravated offenses; SBM affirmed for those; reversed for remaining offenses. |
| Admission of DSS substantiation testimony | State contends testimony was proper lay admissible corroboration. | Sprouse argues it was impermissible opinion testimony. | Admission error acknowledged but not plain error; reversed in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62 (1982) (substantial evidence standard for motions to dismiss)
- State v. Hicks, 319 N.C. 84 (1987) (requires penetration proof for anal intercourse when evidence is ambiguous)
- State v. Estes, 99 N.C. App. 312 (1990) (totality of circumstances supports penetration finding)
- State v. Benson, 331 N.C. 537 (1992) (standard for reviewing evidence in criminal trials)
- State v. Davison, 201 N.C. App. 354 (2009) (SBM analysis limited to offense elements, not underlying facts)
- State v. Giddens, 199 N.C. App. 115 (2009) (DSS substantiation testimony improper but not plain error when overwhelmed by evidence)
- State v. Anthony, 351 N.C. 611 (2000) (statutory rape involves victim incapable of lawful consent)