State v. Walston, 229 N.C. App. 141

Indictments by Walston for sex offenses involving two sisters, spanning 1988–1989; initial reporting occurred in 1994–1994, with additional contact in 2001 and filing of indictments in 2009, superseding indictments in 2011.
Victim E.C. was 20s and J.C. was late 20s at trial; defendant was convicted on multiple counts (first-degree sex offense, three counts first-degree rape, five counts indecent liberties with a child) in 2012.
Defense sought to admit testimony that defendant was respectful to children; trial court denied a proffer; appellate record includes a defense offer of proof via witnesses statements from interviews.
Trial preserved issue on exclusion of good character evidence; court held the proffer sufficient to review the merits.
Court addressed other issues: jury instruction reused 'victim' vs 'alleged victim'; expert testimony on repressed memories; admissibility of prior acts under Rule 404(b).
Court concluded: (a) exclusion of favorable character testimony was prejudicial; (b) use of 'victim' was prejudicial; (c) if retrial, remand for amended Rule 702 analysis; (d) Rule 404(b) prior acts evidence was admissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of good character evidence	Walston contends trial court erred in excluding opinion on respectful treatment of children.	Walston argues such evidence is relevant under Rule 404(a)(1) to negate guilt.	Exclusion prejudicial; new trial required.
Jury instructions referring to victims	Use of 'victim' implied guilt and tainted jury.	Instruction should reflect disputed status of victims; no prejudice if plain error absent.	Holding that 'victim' wording was prejudicial error; new trial.
Expert testimony on repressed memories	Rule 702 amendment should apply; expert should testify under amended standard.	Excluded under prior Rule 702; amended standard should apply on retrial.	Remand for application of amended Rule 702 if retrial occurs.
Evidence of prior acts under Rule 404(b)	Prior acts evidence admissible to show plan/motive/identity with sufficient similarity and proximity.	Evidence of prior acts may be prejudicial and improper character evidence.	Court did not abuse; 404(b) evidence admissible with limiting instruction.

State v. Banks, 191 N.C. App. 743 (N.C. App. 2008) (Rule 404(a) admissibility; essential for prejudice analysis)
State v. Squire, 321 N.C. 541 (N.C. 1988) (pertinent trait; relevance standard)
State v. Simpson, 314 N.C. 359 (N.C. 1985) (recording of proffers and essential content)
State v. McCray, 312 N.C. 519 (N.C. 1985) (limitation on number of character witnesses)
State v. Hoffman, 95 N.C. App. 647 (N.C. App. 1989) (capacity of child-related testimony; significance of proper form)
State v. Murphy, 172 N.C. App. 734 (N.C. App. 2005) (Rule 405(a) testimony form; opinion/reputation vs. specific acts)
State v. Castaneda, 196 N.C. App. 109 (N.C. App. 2009) (minimizing judicial insinuation; plain- error/ prejudice emphasis)
State v. Henderson, 155 N.C. App. 719 (N.C. App. 2003) (pattern jury instructions; prejudice considerations)
State v. Warren, 348 N.C. 80 (N.C. 1998) (pattern instructions; non-binding force)
State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127 (N.C. 2012) (Rule 404(b); similarity and temporal proximity)
State v. Carter, 338 N.C. 569 (N.C. 1994) (eight-year lapse admissibility; modus operandi)
State v. Richardson, 112 N.C. App. 58 (N.C. App. 1993) (plain error review; pattern jury instructions)
State v. Allen, 92 N.C. App. 168 (N.C. App. 1988) (use of 'victim' terminology; not conclusively controlling)
State v. Murphy, 172 N.C. App. 734 (N.C. App. 2005) (reiterated form of admissibility via opinion/reputation)