An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-408
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 5 October 2004
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Stanly County
Nos. 95 CRS 6588
ALVIE LEE FURR 97 CRS 7196
97 CRS 7197
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 26 March 1998 by
Judge Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., in Stanly County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 October 2004.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Amy
C. Kunstling, for the State.
Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for defendant-appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
On 17 November 1997, Alvie Lee Furr (defendant) was indicted
on charges of first degree statutory rape, taking indecent
liberties with a child and first-degree statutory sexual offense.
A jury convicted defendant on all charges. Defendant's petition
for writ of certiorari was granted on 13 November 2003. We find no
error.
I. Background
The State's evidence tended to show that the victim was ten
years old at the time of the trial and eight years old at the time
of the events alleged in the indictment. Defendant was the
boyfriend of the victim's mother. The victim testified that on a
Sunday after her grandmother's birthday party, the defendant askedher to help him fold some clothes. Her mother was asleep on the
couch. The victim went into her mother's bedroom with defendant.
He told her to lie on the bed. The victim testified that defendant
kissed her with his tongue, told her it was called French
Kissing, and licked her between her legs. Defendant threatened to
beat her if she told anybody. The victim also testified that on
another occasion, defendant showed her a movie in which there were
naked people lying on top of each other and a man in the movie
licked another woman on the boobies.
The victim initially denied that anything further had
happened, but later testified that defendant put his penis inside
her between her legs on another occasion and that it hurt. The
victim also testified that defendant had made her lick his penis at
another time and that he ejaculated.
Dr. Elaine Coats (Dr. Coats), a pediatrician with Stanly
Medical Services, testified as an expert in pediatric medicine.
Dr. Coats testified that the victim suffered a tear in the vaginal
orifice that was now healed; that she could state to a reasonable
medical certainty that the victim's vagina had been penetrated; and
that her findings were consistent with what the victim had told her
had happened: that defendant had engaged in sexual intercourse
with her.
On 26 March 1998, defendant was convicted of first-degree
rape, taking indecent liberties with a child, and first-degree
sexual offense. Defendant was sentenced to a term of 336 to 413
months imprisonment for the rape conviction, a concurrent term oftwenty-one to twenty-six months imprisonment for taking indecent
liberties, and a concurrent term of 336 to 413 months imprisonment
for the charge of first-degree sexual offense. This Court granted
defendant's petition for writ of certiorari to review the judgments
on 13 November 2003.
II. Issues
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing Dr.
Coats to testify that a penetration of the victim's vagina had
occurred.
III. Relevant Evidence
Defendant contends that Dr. Coats's testimony was irrelevant
and more prejudicial than probative. Relevant evidence has been
defined as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2004). This Court
has stated:
As a general rule, relevant evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of
undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence. The
exclusion of evidence under this rule is
within the trial court's sound discretion . .
. . Abuse of discretion results where the
court's ruling is manifestly unsupported by
reason or is so arbitrary that it could not
have been the result of a reasoned decision.
State v. Reaves, 132 N.C. App. 615, 618-19, 513 S.E.2d 562, 564-65
(citations omitted), disc. rev. denied, 350 N.C. 846, 539 S.E.2d 4(1999). Here, defendant was charged with first-degree rape
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.2(a)(1). One of the essential
elements of the offense to be proved by the State was that
defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim. Dr.
Coats's testimony that the victim's vagina was penetrated and torn
was relevant and probative of the issue of whether defendant
engaged in vaginal intercourse with the victim. This assignment of
error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
Defendant has failed to show the trial court abused its
discretion in allowing Dr. Coats's testimony into evidence. We
find no error in the trial court's judgment.
No error.
Judges WYNN and GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***