State v. McClamb

NO. COA13-996
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 1 July 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Forsyth County
Nos. 10 CRS 23850, 60721-22
11 CRS 26360
COREY LAMONT MCCLAMB
Appeal by Defendant from Judgments entered 11 February 2013
by Judge C. W. Bragg in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 19 February 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Sherri Horner Lawrence, for the State.
David L. Neal for Defendant.
STEPHENS, Judge.
Procedural History and Evidence
On 11 July 2011, Defendant Corey Lamont McClamb was
indicted on three counts of felony child abuse by sexual act
under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-318.4(a2); three counts of indecent
liberties with a child under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1; one
count of statutory rape or sexual offense of a person who is
thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen years old when the perpetrator is
-2-
at least six years older than the victim under N.C. Gen. Stat. §
14-27.7A(a); and two counts of intercourse and sexual offense
with a child under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.7(a). The first count
of felony child abuse by sexual act was based on vaginal
intercourse, the second count was based on cunnilingus, and the
third count was based on fellatio. On 6 February 2012, Defendant
was indicted under section 14-27.7A(a) on one additional count
of statutory rape or sexual offense of a person who is thirteen,
fourteen, or fifteen years old when the perpetrator is at least
six years older than the victim and two counts of intercourse
and sexual offense with a child under section 14-27.7(a). The
case came on for trial on 4 February 2013. At trial, the State’s
relevant evidence tended to show the following:
“Jane,”1 Defendant’s biological daughter, began living with
Defendant at his residence in Alabama when she was eight years
old and Defendant was approximately thirty-three years old.
While Jane was there, Defendant made her perform oral sex on
him. According to Jane, this occurred four or five times a
month. Additionally, Defendant once kissed Jane by putting his
tongue in her mouth when she was “around [nine] or [ten].” When
1
A pseudonym is used to protect the juvenile’s identity.
-3-
Jane “turned [ten], [Defendant also] tried to put his penis in
[Jane’s] vagina, but it hurt, and he stopped.”
When Jane was eleven or twelve, Defendant sent her to live
with his great aunt in Georgia. At the end of the school year,
Defendant retrieved Jane from Georgia and brought her back to
his residence in Alabama. When Jane returned, Defendant made her
perform oral sex on him roughly “four times a month.”
Approximately six months after arriving in Alabama, when Jane
was “around . . . [thirteen],” Defendant sent Jane to Winston-
Salem, North Carolina to live with his friend. About a year
later, Defendant joined Jane in Winston-Salem, and they moved to
a homeless shelter. Roughly six months after that, “around [June
of 2009],” when Jane was fourteen years old, Defendant and Jane
moved into an apartment in Winston-Salem.
Jane testified that “many times . . . at night [in the new
Winston-Salem residence, Defendant] came into [her] room, and
[Defendant] made [her] perform oral sex on [him]. [Defendant
would also perform] oral sex on [her].” Defendant engaged in
vaginal intercourse with Jane. This occurred for the first time
when Jane was fourteen years old. Defendant came into Jane’s
bedroom, made her perform oral sex on him, performed oral sex on
her, and “put his penis in [Jane’s] vagina.” Defendant would
-4-
force Jane to have vaginal intercourse with him “[s]ix times a
month.” The vaginal intercourse took place in Jane’s bedroom, in
Defendant’s bedroom, and once in the living room. A forensics
expert for the State testified that Defendant’s semen was found
on Jane’s comforter. The sexual assault nurse examiner testified
that Jane’s vagina exhibited a tear, swelling, and redness that
was consistent with Jane’s testimony.
Defendant denied molesting or raping Jane. He testified
that his semen was likely on Jane’s comforter because Jane left
it in the living room, where Defendant “probably used [it] one
time” with one of his girlfriends.
At the close of all the evidence, Defendant moved to
dismiss the charges against him, including the three counts of
felony child abuse by sexual act. The trial court denied the
motion. After closing arguments, the trial court instructed the
jury on felonious child abuse by sexual act and defined sexual
act to include vaginal intercourse. Following deliberations, the
jury found Defendant guilty on eleven of the twelve charges and
returned no verdict on one count of statutory rape. Except for
the three charges of felony child abuse by a sexual act, the
jury also found that Defendant abused a position of trust or
confidence in the commission of these crimes. On 11 February
-5-
2013, Defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of 456
months to 557 months incarceration. Defendant gave notice of
appeal in open court.
Discussion
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred
in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss as it pertains to the
single charge of felony child abuse by a sexual act based on
vaginal intercourse. Defendant argues that the court erred
because he could not “legally be convicted” of the charge under
the trial court’s definition of sexual act. We disagree.
“In a criminal case, a defendant may not make insufficiency
of the evidence to prove the crime charged the basis of an issue
presented on appeal unless a motion to dismiss the action . . .
is made at trial.” N.C.R. App. P. 10(a)(3). “This Court reviews
the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.” State
v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007).
Upon [the] defendant’s motion for dismissal,
the question for the [appellate c]ourt is
whether there is substantial evidence (1) of
each essential element of the offense
charged, or of a lesser offense included
therein, and (2) of [the] defendant’s being
the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the
motion is properly denied.
State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455
(citation omitted), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890, 148 L. Ed. 2d
-6-
150 (2000). “In making its determination, the trial court must
consider all evidence admitted, whether competent or
incompetent, in the light most favorable to the State, giving
the State the benefit of every reasonable inference and
resolving any contradictions in its favor.” State v. Rose, 339
N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223 (1994), cert. denied, 515
U.S. 1135, 132 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1995).
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss because the term “sexual act” does not include
vaginal intercourse under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-318.4(a2).
Specifically, Defendant asserts that we are bound by our
determination in State v. Stokes, 216 N.C. App. 529, 532, 718
S.E.2d 174, 176-77 (2011), that the definition of sexual act in
Article 7A, section 14-27.1(4), which explicitly excludes
vaginal intercourse as a sexual act, “control[s] in the felony
child abuse by sexual act cases [under Article 39].” We
disagree.
The relevant statutory provisions are as follows:
ARTICLE 7A. RAPE AND OTHER SEX OFFENSES
§ 14-27.1. Definitions.
As used in this Article, unless the context
requires otherwise:
. . . .
-7-
(4) “Sexual act” means cunnilingus,
fellatio, analingus, or anal intercourse,
but does not include vaginal intercourse.
. . . .
§ 14-27.2. First-degree rape.
(a) A person is guilty of rape in the first
degree if the person engages in vaginal
intercourse:
(1) With a victim who is a child under
the age of [thirteen] years and the
defendant is at least [twelve] years
old and is at least four years older
than the victim; or
(2) With another person by force and
against the will of the other person,
and:
a. Employs or displays a dangerous
or deadly weapon or an article
which the other person reasonably
believes to be a dangerous or
deadly weapon; or
b. Inflicts serious personal
injury upon the victim or another
person; or
c. The person commits the offense
aided and abetted by one or more
other persons.
. . . .
§ 14-27.4. First-degree sexual offense.
(a) A person is guilty of a sexual offense
in the first degree if the person engages in
a sexual act:
-8-
(1) With a victim who is a child under
the age of [thirteen] years and the
defendant is at least [twelve] years
old and is at least four years older
than the victim; or
(2) With another person by force and
against the will of the other person,
and:
a. Employs or displays a dangerous
or deadly weapon or an article
which the other person reasonably
believes to be a dangerous or
deadly weapon; or
b. Inflicts serious personal
injury upon the victim or another
person; or
c. The person commits the offense
aided and abetted by one or more
other persons.
. . . .
ARTICLE 39. PROTECTION OF MINORS.
. . . .
§ 14-318.4. Child abuse a felony.
. . . .
(a2) Any parent or legal guardian of a child
less than [sixteen] years of age who commits
or allows the commission of any sexual act
upon the child is guilty of a Class D
felony.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-27.1(4), -27.2(a), -27.4(a), -318.4(a2)
(2013).
-9-
In response to Defendant’s argument, the State asserts that
vaginal intercourse is a part of the definition of “sexual act”
for the purposes of section 14-318.4(a2) because our holding in
Stokes “[does] not specifically address the issue of whether
. . . the statutory definition of [‘]sexual act[’] in [section]
14-27.1(4) applies to Article 39 offenses.” To support its
assertion, the State makes the following three arguments:
First, the “legislature clearly indicated that the
definition of the term ‘sexual act’ under [section] 14-27.1(4)
applies solely to offenses . . . within Article 7[A] by
including the language, ‘as used in this Article,’ at the
beginning of the statutory section defining terms for Article
7[A].” Second, incorporation of an Article 7A definition into
Article 39 is contrary to legislative intent because the reason
to distinguish sexual act from vaginal intercourse in Article 7A
is “to distinguish rape from first and second degree sexual
offense and other sexual offense references within Article
7[A].” As the State points out, “[t]he usage of the two terms
indicates that the [General Assembly] intended such a
distinction under Article 7[A] to reduce the possibility of
confusion between vaginal intercourse for rape and a sexual act
for a sexual offense.” See generally State v. Lucas, 302 N.C.
-10-
342, 346, 275 S.E.2d 433, 436 (1981) (“The only sexual act
excluded from the statutory definition [in Article 7A] relates
to vaginal intercourse, a necessary omission because vaginal
intercourse is an element of the crimes of first and second
degree rape . . . .”). The State contends that while the need to
distinguish between a “sexual act” and vaginal intercourse
exists when punishing rape and other sexual offenses
differently, the distinction is not necessary where one statute
is designed to punish the sexual abuse of children in its
entirety. Third, the State points to Article 27A’s definition of
“aggravated offense” to show the legislature’s intention to
include vaginal intercourse within the meaning of “sexual act”
for non-Article 7A offenses. That definition provides that an
aggravated offense includes “engaging in a sexual act involving
vaginal, anal, or oral penetration.” We fully agree with the
State’s position.
We conclude that our holding in Stokes is controlling with
respect to the meaning of the term “sexual act” as used in
section 14-318.4(a2) only in light of the narrow factual
circumstances and legal issue raised therein. The defendant in
Stokes was charged with violating section 14-318.4(a2) of
Article 39. 216 N.C. App. at 532, 718 S.E.2d at 176-77. On
-11-
appeal, we addressed whether the State presented sufficient
evidence that the defendant violated section 14-318.4(a2) when
he digitally penetrated the victim’s vagina. Id. Citing the
Article 7A definition of “sexual act,” which includes
penetration by any object into the genital opening of another
person’s body, we concluded that digital vaginal penetration
constitutes a sexual act. See id. We did not hold, however, that
the Article 7A definition of sexual act applies to exclude
vaginal intercourse as a sexual act under Article 39. That
question simply was not present in Stokes.2
Article 7A prefaces its list of definitions by clarifying
that such definitions are specific to Article 7A “unless context
requires otherwise.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.1. In that article,
a criminal “sexual act” is distinct from criminal “vaginal
intercourse” because vaginal intercourse is separately addressed
in the context of rape. No such distinction exists in Article
39. There is no separate provision involving vaginal intercourse
and, thus, no need for any such distinction. Moreover, it would
2
This Court’s discussion in State v. Lark, 198 N.C. App. 82, 88–
89, 678 S.E.2d 693, 698–99 (2009), is similarly limited to an
analysis of fellatio as a sexual act under the Article 7A
definition when applied to an Article 39 prosecution. Lark
likewise does not address whether vaginal intercourse
constitutes a sexual act under Article 39.
-12-
be absurd to conclude — as Defendant’s interpretation of Stokes
would have us do — that a parent or guardian who engaged in anal
intercourse with a child less than 16 years old, for example,
would be guilty of felony child abuse under section 14-318.4(a2)
while a parent or guardian who engaged in vaginal intercourse
would not be guilty. Therefore, we hold that the General
Assembly intended the term “sexual act,” as it is used in
section 14-318.4(a2) of Article 39, to include vaginal
intercourse. Accordingly, we find no error.
NO ERROR.
Judges BRYANT and DILLON concur.