An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA04-180


Filed: 19 October 2004


         v.                        Chatham County
                                No. 00 CRS 50783

    Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 2 August 2001 by Judge David LaBarre in Superior Court, Chatham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 October 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Belinda A. Smith, for the State.

    Joal H. Broun for defendant-appellant.

    WYNN, Judge.

    Defendant Ronald Lee Stuart appeals from judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of indecent liberties with a minor. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in excluding his medical records from the evidence. For the reasons stated herein, we find no error by the trial court.
    The State's evidence tended to show that on the morning of 10 April 2000, Defendant fondled his stepdaughter's breasts. Defendant's stepdaughter was in fifth grade at the time. While Defendant did not dispute his stepdaughter's allegations, he denied any memory of the incident, claiming he had experienced a series of blackouts in the days following his exposure to a pesticide and herbicide solution in the course of his employment on 6 or 7 April2000. Defendant testified he visited the emergency room on 10 or 11 April 2000, the morning after he learned of his stepdaughter's allegations, and remained in the hospital for a week. He expressed remorse for the incident, but asserted he “was not in control” of his actions.
    Despite ascribing his behavior and memory loss to the interaction of the pesticide-herbicide mixture with his blood pressure medication, Defendant did not offer testimony from any medical expert to support his theory. The State's expert witness, medical toxicologist Dr. William Joel Megs, opined that exposure to the chemicals in question would not have caused the symptoms described by Defendant, either alone or in combination with his blood pressure medication.
    Upon the jury's guilty verdict, the trial court sentenced Defendant to an active prison term of twenty-five to thirty months. On 19 June 2002, this Court issued a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 21(a)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, for the purpose of reviewing the judgment.
    In his sole argument on appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court's ruling excluding from evidence his hospital records from April of 2000. In sustaining the State's objection to the records, the trial court found that “they weren't furnished pursuant to reciprocal discovery, [and] . . . they weren't even furnished at the time [Defendant] testified[.]” Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit this evidence,thereby denying him due process of law.
    Defendant has failed to properly preserve his claims for our review on appeal. Although he now casts the trial court's ruling as a violation of his state and federal constitutional rights, Defendant did not present his constitutional claims to the trial judge and cannot raise them for the first time on appeal. State v. Anderson, 350 N.C. 152, 175, 190, 513 S.E.2d 296, 310, 319 (1999); State v. Call, 349 N.C. 382, 410, 508 S.E.2d 496, 519 (1998). Moreover, Defendant failed to make an offer of proof at trial as to the contents of his records and has not submitted the relevant documents to this Court in the record on appeal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 103(a)(2) (2003); Morris v. Bailey, 86 N.C. App. 378, 383, 358 S.E.2d 120, 123 (1987). Accordingly, he cannot show prejudice, as required by section 15A-1443(a) of the North Carolina General Statutes. See State v. Lee, 335 N.C. 244, 274, 439 S.E.2d 547, 562, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 891, 130 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1994); State v. King, 326 N.C. 662, 674, 392 S.E.2d 609, 617 (1990). “Having deprived this Court of the necessary record from which to ascertain whether the alleged error was prejudicial, defendant has precluded proper consideration of this assignment of error, and it is deemed waived.” State v. Simpson, 327 N.C. 178, 189, 393 S.E.2d 771, 778 (1990).
    The record on appeal contains additional assignments of error not addressed by Defendant in his brief to this Court. Pursuant to Rule 28(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deem them abandoned.     No error.
    Judges TYSON and GEER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***