State v. Walston
367 N.C. 721
N.C.2014Background
- This NC Supreme Court case reviews admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(a)(1) and jury instruction phrasing in a child sexual abuse trial.
- Defendant Walston was charged with multiple sex offenses based largely on two sisters’ testimony from the late 1980s/early 1990s; no physical corroboration was presented.
- Defense sought to admit testimony on three traits: overall good character, law-abiding nature, and respect towards children; trial court allowed the latter two partially.
- Superseding indictments were filed in 2011; defense proffered expert testimony on repressed memories, which the trial court excluded.
- The jury was instructed using standard pattern instructions that referred to the victims as ‘victims.’
- Court of Appeals reversed on Rule 404(a)(1) and jury instruction issues; NC Supreme Court reversed and remanded on those issues and left for further consideration on the expert-witness standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(a)(1) tailoring | Walston’s respect toward children is a pertinent trait | Trait is tailored to charges and admissible under 404(a)(1) | Trait not tailored; inadmissible |
| Jury instruction wording | Use of 'victim' prejudicially implies guilt | Pattern instructions are proper and not prejudicial | Use of 'victim' not error; no prejudice error; remand on expert evidence still needed |
| Expert testimony under Rule 702 | Proposed repressed-memory expert testimony should be admitted | Trial court properly excluded under updated Rule 702 | Remand for further consideration; no final ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Squire, 321 N.C. 541 (1988) (pertinent trait requires tailoring to issue)
- State v. Bogle, 324 N.C. 190 (1989) (allows limited use of prima facie character evidence for innocence)
- State v. Laws, 345 N.C. 585 (1997) (pertinence requires a special relationship to the charged conduct)
- State v. Sexton, 336 N.C. 321 (1994) (4(a) narrowly construed; general traits not sufficient)
- State v. Hill, 331 N.C. 387 (1992) (use of 'victim' not improper per se)
- State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647 (1997) (pattern instructions; phrasing not inherently prejudicial)
- State v. McCarroll, 336 N.C. 559 (1994) (court permitted use of 'victim' where burden of proof remained proper)
- State v. Clapp, State v. Clapp, N.C. App. , 761 S.E.2d 710 (2014) (working with children not deemed a pertinent trait in similar sex-offense cases)