State v. Walton ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                      NO. COA14-402
    NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
    Filed: 21 October 2014
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
    v.                                     Johnston County
    No. 11CRS052914
    MALIK JAQUEZ WALTON,
    Defendant.
    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 10 July 2013 and
    30 July 2013 by Judge Thomas H. Lock in Superior Court, Johnston
    County.      Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 September 2014.
    Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Special                  Deputy
    Attorney General William V. Conley, for the State.
    Mark Montgomery, for defendant-appellant.
    STROUD, Judge.
    Defendant appeals judgments convicting him of first degree
    sexual offense and second degree kidnapping.                 For the following
    reasons, we find no error.
    I.     Background
    The State’s evidence tended to show that in May of 2011,
    Stacy1 was in a bedroom with defendant and her fifteen-month old
    son.        Defendant   was   the    father   of   Stacy’s   son.    Defendant
    1
    A pseudonym will be used to protect the identity of those
    involved.
    -2-
    slapped Stacy and began repeatedly choking her and threatened to
    kill her as he held a knife to her neck.                     Defendant then put
    both his fingers and his penis in Stacy’s vagina and her anus.
    Defendant      was    indicted      for   second    degree   rape,      first   degree
    kidnapping,       and   first    degree     sexual    offense.       Defendant      was
    tried by a jury, and the jury found him guilty of second degree
    kidnapping and first degree sexual offense.                       The trial court
    entered judgments accordingly.              Defendant appeals.
    II.     Medical History Testimony
    Defendant first contends that “the trial court committed
    plain error in allowing two medical witnesses to testify that
    [Stacy]’s       history       was     consistent      with    sexual       assault.”
    (Original in all caps.)              Defendant argues that “Emergency Room
    Nurse     Tonia      Nowak    testified      that    [Stacy]’s       injuries      were
    consistent with her history. . . . Emergency Room Physician Dr.
    Brendan    Berry      testified     that    [Stacy]’s     demeanor,      history    and
    examination, was ‘consistent with the sexual assault that she
    described.’ . . . This was reversible error.”                     As defendant did
    not object to the testimony, he now asks that we review his
    contentions for plain error. See State v. Harding, 
    110 N.C. App. 155
    ,    161,    
    429 S.E.2d 416
    ,     420   (1993)   (“Due    to    defendant’s
    -3-
    failure to object at trial, we must review this objection under
    the plain error rule.”)
    For error to constitute plain error, a
    defendant    must    demonstrate    that     a
    fundamental error occurred at trial. To show
    that an error was fundamental, a defendant
    must    establish    prejudice—that,     after
    examination of the entire record, the error
    had a probable impact on the jury’s finding
    that the defendant was guilty. Moreover,
    because plain error is to be applied
    cautiously and only in the exceptional case,
    the error will often be one that seriously
    affects the fairness, integrity or public
    reputation of judicial proceedings.
    State v. Lawrence, 
    365 N.C. 506
    , 518, 
    723 S.E.2d 326
    , 334 (2012)
    (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Furthermore,
    our Supreme Court has established that “[a] prerequisite to our
    engaging in a plain error analysis is the determination that the
    instruction complained of constitutes error at all.” State v.
    Torain, 
    316 N.C. 111
    , 116, 
    340 S.E.2d 465
    , 468, (quotation marks
    omitted), cert. denied, 
    479 U.S. 836
    , 
    93 L. Ed. 2d 77
    (1986).
    Here, both Nurse Nowak and Dr. Berry testified as expert
    witnesses.    “An     expert   witness      may    not      testify       as   to   the
    credibility of a witness. Nonetheless, an expert witness may
    testify,   upon   a   proper   foundation,        as   to    .   .    .   whether     a
    particular    complainant       has     symptoms         or      characteristics
    consistent therewith.”      State v. Khouri, 
    214 N.C. App. 389
    , 401,
    -4-
    
    716 S.E.2d 1
    ,   9-10    (2011)     (citations        and   quotation       marks
    omitted),      disc. review denied,             
    365 N.C. 546
    , 
    742 S.E.2d 176
    (2012).       Here, even by defendant’s own summary in his brief, the
    expert    witnesses       testified       that     the    physical       evidence    they
    observed was consistent with Stacy’s allegations of abuse; the
    witnesses did not state that Stacy’s allegations were credible.
    Defendant directs this Court to State v. Frady, but in that case
    the testifying witness had not examined the individual alleging
    sexual abuse, but here both Dr. Brown and Nurse Nowak examined
    Stacy    and     testified       regarding       the   examination;       accordingly,
    Frady is not applicable.               See State v. Frady, ___ N.C. App. ___,
    ___,    
    747 S.E.2d 164
    ,    167    (“It    is    well   settled      that    expert
    opinion testimony is not admissible to establish the credibility
    of the victim as a witness.                However, those cases in which the
    disputed      testimony     concerns       the    credibility       of    a     witness’s
    accusation of a defendant must be distinguished from cases in
    which the expert’s testimony relates to a diagnosis based on the
    expert’s examination of the witness.                      With respect to expert
    testimony in child sexual abuse prosecutions, our Supreme Court
    has approved, upon a proper foundation, the admission of expert
    testimony with respect to the characteristics of sexually abused
    children      and    whether     the    particular       complainant      has    symptoms
    -5-
    consistent with those characteristics.                      In order for an expert
    medical witness to render an opinion that a child has, in fact,
    been    sexually        abused,    the    State       must      establish        a   proper
    foundation,         i.e.    physical      evidence      consistent          with     sexual
    abuse.”       (citations,     quotation        marks,   and     brackets         omitted)),
    disc. review denied, 
    367 N.C. 273
    , 
    752 S.E.2d 465
    (2013).                              This
    argument is overruled.
    III. Trial Court’s Instructions
    Defendant      next    contends        that   “the    trial       court    erred   or
    committed       plain      error   in    identifying        .   .    .    [Stacy]    as    a
    ‘victim.’”         (Original in all caps.)           Defendant did not object to
    the    jury    instructions,       so    we    review   for      plain     error.         See
    
    Harding, 110 N.C. App. at 161
    , 429 S.E.2d at 420. This Court has
    previously determined that use of the word ‘victim’ by the trial
    court is generally not plain error, see State v. Surratt, 
    218 N.C. App. 308
    , 309-10, 
    721 S.E.2d 255
    , 256, disc. review denied,
    
    365 N.C. 559
    , 
    722 S.E.2d 600
    (2012).                    We agree that in a case
    where there is a jury question as to whether an act is actually
    a criminal offense or as to whether the alleged act actually
    happened      to    the    complaining     witness,     there       is    technically      a
    question of whether there was a “victim.” See State v. Walston,
    ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 
    747 S.E.2d 720
    , 727 (2013) (“The issue
    -6-
    of whether sexual offenses occurred and whether E.C. and J.C.
    were ‘victims’ were issues of fact for the jury to decide.”),
    disc.    review    denied,       
    367 N.C. 290
    ,      
    753 S.E.2d 666
      (2014).
    Black’s Law Dictionary defines “victim” as “[a] person harmed by
    a crime, tort, or other wrong.”                   Black’s Law Dictionary 1703
    (9th ed. 2009).       So use of the word “victim,” both in denotation
    and connotation, means that the complaining witness was “harmed
    by a crime, tort, or other wrong.”                
    Id. But in
    this case, defendant did not object to use of the
    term    “victim.”      Stacy     testified        that    defendant     choked     her,
    threatened to kill her as he held a knife to her neck, and then
    inserted both his fingers and penis into her vagina and anus.
    In     addition,    the      physical     evidence        of    Stacy’s       injuries
    corroborated her testimony. We cannot determine that the jury
    might    reasonably       have   reached      a    different      verdict     if   the
    reference to “victim” in the jury instructions had not occurred,
    so we do not find plain error.                See 
    Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518
    ,
    723 S.E.2d at 334.
    IV.    Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we find no error.
    NO ERROR.
    Judges MCGEE and BRYANT concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-402

Filed Date: 10/21/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014