State v. Odom

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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 Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA14-964
Filed: 19 May 2015
Rowan County, No. 10CRS052393
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
v.
STEVEN LEE ODOM, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered on or about 12 March 2014 by
Judge Mark E. Klass in Superior Court, Rowan County. Heard in the Court of
Appeals 3 February 2015.
Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Mary Carla
Babb, for the State.
W. Michael Spivey, for defendant-appellant.
STROUD, Judge.
Defendant appeals judgments convicting him of two counts of statutory
rape/sex offense. We find no error.
I. Background
STATE V. ODOM
Opinion of the Court
The State’s evidence tended to show that in the summer of 2009 Jane1, who
was 13, told her mother she had been hanging out with a man who was 21. Jane’s
mother tried to find the man using a contact number in Jane’s cell phone and Jane’s
MySpace and Facebook friends, and Jane’s mother found defendant’s name. Jane’s
mother later found defendant on the sex offender registry. Jane’s mother asked
defendant to stop hanging around with her daughter. At some point during the
summer, Jane had oral sex and sexual intercourse with defendant. When defendant
was eventually questioned by Detective Clint Mauldin of the Rowan County Sheriff’s
Department he confessed to having oral sex and sexual intercourse with Jane. On or
about 6 July 2010, defendant was indicted for statutory rape and statutory sex
offense. A jury found defendant guilty of both offenses, and the trial court sentenced
defendant. Defendant appeals.
II. Evidence Defendant Was a Registered Sex Offender
Defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing in evidence that he was
already a registered sex offender. Defendant admits that he did not properly preserve
this error for appellate review at trial, and thus this issue should be reviewed for
plain error.
[O]n plain error review, the defendant must first
demonstrate that the trial court committed error, and next
1 A pseudonym will be used to protect the identity of the minor involved.
-2-
STATE V. ODOM
Opinion of the Court
that absent the error, the jury probably would have
reached a different result. So, if the defendant has failed
to show that the purported error would have led to a
different result, we need not consider whether an error was
actually made.
State v. Larkin, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 764 S.E.2d 681, 685 (2014) (citation and
quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, ___ N.C. ___, 768 S.E.2d 841 (2015).
Evidence that defendant was a registered sex offender was introduced as part
of Jane’s mother’s testimony explaining how she discovered who defendant was and
why she asked him not to have further contact with Jane. But even if we were to
assume that evidence that defendant was already a registered sex offender was
admitted in error, defendant has failed to demonstrate that the jury probably would
have reached a different result without this evidence. See id. Here, Jane testified
that when she was 13 and defendant was 21, they had engaged in oral sex and
intercourse. Detective Clint Mauldin also testified that defendant confessed to
having oral sex and intercourse with Jane. Based upon the evidence before the jury,
we do not believe that admitting evidence that defendant was a registered sex
offender “led to a different result[.]” Id. As such, this argument is overruled.
III. Motion for Mistrial
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for
mistrial based on the erroneously admitted evidence that he was a registered sex
offender.
-3-
STATE V. ODOM
Opinion of the Court
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A–1061 states, in pertinent part, that
upon motion of a defendant or with his
concurrence the judge may declare a mistrial
at any time during the trial. The judge must
declare a mistrial upon the defendant’s
motion if there occurs during the trial an error
or legal defect in the proceedings, or conduct
inside or outside the courtroom, resulting in
substantial and irreparable prejudice to the
defendant’s case.
. . . Our standard of review when examining a trial
court’s denial of a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion.
State v. Glenn, 221 N.C. App. 143, 152-53, 726 S.E.2d 185, 191 (2012) (citations,
quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
Considering the evidence presented by the State, including Jane’s testimony
and a detective’s testimony of defendant’s confession, we do not believe admission
that defendant was a registered sex offender resulted in “substantial and irreparable
prejudice[,]” and thus we find no abuse of discretion.
Id. This argument is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we find no error.
NO ERROR.
Judges BRYANT and HUNTER, JR. concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-4-