State v. Watts, 2017 N.C. LEXIS 553

Defendant Calvin Sherwood Watts was tried in Columbus County on charges including first‑degree rape, three counts of first‑degree sexual offense with a child, and kidnapping based on alleged sexual assaults of an 11‑year‑old.
The State sought to admit other‑acts evidence under Rule 404(b): a 2003 alleged rape of a different woman (indictments returned then later dismissed) to show plan and opportunity.
The trial court admitted the 404(b) testimony after voir dire over repeated defense objections; defense counsel then moved to strike, requested a limiting instruction under Rule 404(b)/Rule 105, and alternatively asked for a mistrial; the court denied relief and did not give the limiting instruction.
The jury convicted Watts on the counts submitted (one count reduced to attempted rape); trial counsel preserved objections but the requested limiting instruction was not given.
The Court of Appeals (divided panel) reversed and granted a new trial; the State appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that defense counsel’s request, taken in context, sufficiently preserved the claim for a Rule 105 limiting instruction and that failure to give the requested instruction was prejudicial error requiring a new trial; the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals as modified.

Issue	State's Argument	Watts' Argument	Held
Whether defense preserved request for a Rule 404(b)/Rule 105 limiting instruction	Request was unclear and thus waived on appeal	Counsel’s motion to strike and “ask for an instruction” plainly requested a limiting instruction	Preserved: request was adequate under Rule 10(a)(1) when read in context
Whether failure to give the requested Rule 105 limiting instruction requires reversal	Not expressly argued that instruction was required despite admission	Failure to give requested limiting instruction prejudiced defendant	Reversal: failure to give requested Rule 105 instruction is prejudicial error entitling defendant to a new trial
Admissibility/use of the other‑acts evidence under Rule 404(b)	Evidence admissible to show opportunity and plan	Challenged admission via motion in limine and objections	Trial court admitted evidence; Supreme Court did not disturb admissibility ruling but focused on failure to give limiting instruction

State v. Norkett, 269 N.C. 679, 153 S.E.2d 362 (1967) (failure to give requested limiting instruction is prejudicial error)
State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 406 S.E.2d 876 (1991) (failure to give limiting instruction not requested is not reviewable)
State v. Jones, 322 N.C. 406, 368 S.E.2d 844 (1988) (same principle regarding unrequested limiting instructions)