State v. Towe, 366 N.C. 56

Defendant was tried on three counts of first-degree sexual offense with a child and two counts of first-degree statutory rape of a child under thirteen.
The victim was nine years old at the time of the alleged offenses; the State presented medical and social-work testimony alleging abuse.
Dr. Ryan (pediatrician) testified about finding signs suggesting possible abuse; Dr. Everett (pediatrician) testified that lack of physical findings does not rule out abuse.
Dr. Everett stated that 70–75% of abused children show no abnormal physical findings, a statement the State’s cross-examination did not fully diminish.
The trial court admitted Dr. Everett’s testimony over defense objection; the Court of Appeals later reversed, finding plain error and remand for new trial.
This Court held admission of Dr. Everett’s testimony was plain error, but applied the corrected plain-error standard to determine prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Dr. Everett’s testimony improper?	State contends it was permissible under Stancil to discuss abuse characteristics with proper foundation.	Towe asserts the testimony improperly in effect concluded abuse occurred without physical findings.	Yes; improper without proper foundation addressing physical evidence.
Did the improper testimony constitute plain error under the Lawrence/Odom standard?	State argues error was plain and likely affected the verdict given victim credibility reliance.	Towe contends the error was not fundamental and did not likely change the outcome.	Yes; when properly applied, the error was plain and prejudicial under Lawrence/Odom.
Did the error have a probable impact on the jury’s guilty verdict?	State emphasizes Dr. Everett’s stature could bolster credibility, possibly altering the verdict.	Towe notes cross-examination mitigated the impact amid overwhelming other evidence.	Yes; the error likely affected the verdict, justifying reversal.

State v. Stancil, 355 N.C. 266 (N.C. 2002) (expert may discuss child-abuse characteristics with proper foundation; not allowed to declare abuse absent physical evidence)
State v. Hammett, 361 N.C. 92 (N.C. 2006) (limits on expert testimony when no physical evidence; cannot rely solely on child’s story)
State v. Bates, 140 N.C. App. 743 (N.C. App. 2000) (reversible error when expert based on testimony without proper foundation; later cases refined limits)
State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655 (N.C. 1983) (plain error requires that error seriously affected fairness and probably influenced verdict)
State v. Lawrence, — N.C.—, 723 S.E.2d 326 (N.C. 2012) (defines cautious plain-error review and prejudice requirement)
State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201 (N.C. 1987) (plain error doctrine includes miscarriage of justice and probable impact on verdict)