State v. WestÂ
255 N.C. App. 162
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant James Eric West (48) was convicted by a jury of second-degree sexual offense for performing unwanted oral sex on D.S. (20) at the Durham Rescue Mission on December 26, 2014.
- D.S. had told Defendant he was a virgin during a prior conversation; after the assault D.S. reported the incident to police and described earlier childhood sexual abuse.
- Police learned D.S. had told one officer he was removed from his family as an infant due to sexual abuse and told another officer he had sexually assaulted his half-sister at age eight or nine.
- Forensic testing matched Defendant’s DNA to a genital swab from D.S.; Defendant denied the assault and was indicted on kidnapping and sexual offense charges (kidnapping later dismissed).
- At trial defense sought to cross-examine D.S. about his childhood sexual assault of his half-sister; the court held an in-camera hearing and excluded that evidence under Rule 403 (and as Rape Shield evidence).
- Defendant appealed, arguing the exclusion was improper because prior sexual assault by the prosecuting witness is not protected by the Rape Shield statute; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | West's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prosecuting witness’s prior sexual assault (childhood) | Evidence was remote, not probative of the charged conduct, and highly prejudicial; exclusion proper under Rule 403 | Evidence was needed for impeachment and to show D.S. was not a virgin; not barred by Rape Shield | Exclusion was not error: trial court properly balanced relevance vs. unfair prejudice under Rule 403 |
| Whether Rape Shield (Rule 412) categorically bars this evidence | Court need not decide categorical scope; Rule 403 analysis controls admissibility | Argued prior assault should not be protected by Rule 412 so it must be admissible | Court declined to decide Rule 412 scope because Rule 403 exclusion independently supported the ruling |
| Whether inconsistent statements about when/why D.S. was removed from home required admission of prior assault evidence | Inconsistent statements were used on cross-examination; court allowed questioning about inconsistency itself | Argued full context (prior sexual assault) was necessary to give meaning to the inconsistencies | Court allowed impeachment on inconsistent statements but excluded the substantive prior-assault details as more prejudicial than probative |
| Effect of DNA evidence on need for prior-conduct evidence | DNA match lessened relevance of remote prior-conduct evidence to core factual dispute | Prior conduct would have undermined D.S.’s credibility and supported defense theory | Strength of independent evidence (DNA) reduced probative value of remote prior conduct, supporting exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76 (trial court’s Rule 403 evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Fortney, 301 N.C. 31 (Rape Shield law codifies relevance rule for past sexual behavior)
- State v. Younger, 306 N.C. 692 (inconsistent statements are an issue common to all trials; in-camera balancing hearing appropriate)
- State v. Martin, 241 N.C. App. 602 (when evidence falls outside Rule 412 exceptions, court must apply Rule 403 balancing)
- State v. Autry, 321 N.C. 392 (upholding exclusion of evidence about victim’s non-virgin status where probative value was outweighed by prejudice)