{ "id": 8523266, "name": "In the Matter of: J. A., Respondent-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "In re J. A.", "decision_date": "1991-08-20", "docket_number": "No. 9014DC596", "first_page": "720", "last_page": "730", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "103 N.C. App. 720" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "156 U.S. 237", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1488083 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242-243" }, { "page": "411" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/156/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 U.S. 149", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168934 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155-56" }, { "page": "495", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "157-58" }, { "page": "496-97", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/399/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "448 U.S. 56", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1787607 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/448/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S.Ct. 3139", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 6219632 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "3146", "parenthetical": "quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)" }, { "page": "651-652", "parenthetical": "quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/497/0805-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 S.E.2d 139", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "144", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 N.C. App. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524160 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/89/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 762", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4714140 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "764" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0762-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-27.4", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 381", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553562 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-34", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 S.E.2d 800", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564130 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567586 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 S.E.2d 779", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "782" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 N.C. App. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520702 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/77/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "328 S.E.2d 904", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "906" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 N.C. App. 587", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525621 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/74/0587-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 924, "char_count": 21509, "ocr_confidence": 0.787, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6430681495765715e-07, "percentile": 0.6914196541960554 }, "sha256": "cb6cbdbec9566d6a3bc3a84bdc07de135d5f584b8def379f3ec6f66a366a2fc8", "simhash": "1:1eace9227927df4a", "word_count": 3541 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Phillips and Eagles concur." ], "parties": [ "In the Matter of: J. A., Respondent-Appellant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nRespondent appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent and placing him on probation for one year following convictions of first degree sexual offense and assault by pointing a gun. For the reasons that follow, we find no error.\nI\nOn 27 July 1989, Mrs. L and her husband, Mr. L (hereinafter referred to jointly as \u201cthe L\u2019s\u201d), attended a concert leaving their four-year-old daughter, CL, and Mrs. L\u2019s seven-year-old stepbrother, KS, in the care of a thirteen-year-old neighborhood boy, JA (the parties\u2019 names were omitted from the record). Testimony at trial by the State\u2019s witnesses tended to show that during the evening, while playing a game of strip checkers, JA took off some of his clothes; he watched obscene movies with the children and they looked at magazines in which there were pictures of nude people; he touched CL\u2019s rectal area and he put something on her vagina which felt like water; he obtained a gun and pointed it at CL.\nUpon returning from the concert, CL\u2019s parents noticed that their bedroom was messy. They also noticed that CL behaved strangely and exhibited explicit sexual behaviors. Shortly thereafter, CL informed Mrs. L that JA had touched her and that she along with JA and KS had watched a movie of people having sex.\nThe L\u2019s contacted Dr. St. Claire, who examined CL the morning after the alleged incident. She found that CL had a moderately red vaginal area with a moderate amount of cloudy discharge; the perianal and anal areas were red and irritated with a mucoid discharge that was not normally present.\nAdditional evidence for the State included testimony from Donna Mansour-Norris, a social worker with the Duke Child Protection Team and an expert in pediatric social work; S.M. Barringer, a youth investigator with the Durham Police Department; and, Carolyn Cole, Director of the Trauma Treatment Service at the Community Guidance Clinic, specializing in child sexual abuse. Their testimony based on their various separate interviews with CL tended to show that on the night that JA babysat for CL and KS, JA played strip checkers with the children; JA took off his pants and underwear and touched CL\u2019s vaginal area with his penis; JA put his penis inside CL\u2019s vagina; CL put cream on JA\u2019s penis and he put cream on her vagina; they looked at pictures of nude people in magazines and they watched movies showing nude people.\nThe respondent, JA, presented evidence which tended to show that during the evening in question, he, and the children went into the bedroom looking for a ball. While in the bedroom, KS found a game of strip checkers and asked if they could play with it. JA agreed and after playing with the game for a few minutes, KS took off his pants and underpants and told CL to do the same. CL took off her clothes and then put them back on. Afterwards, JA put the games back and they watched television until CL\u2019s parents returned. JA denied taking off any of his clothes; touching or fondling CL; looking at any adult magazines or movies; and pointing a gun at CL.\nII\nRespondent first assigns error to the trial judge\u2019s denial of his motion to dismiss the two petitions in this case on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a finding of guilt as to either first degree sexual offense or assault by pointing a gun.\nFrom the outset, it should be noted that a motion to dismiss a juvenile petition is recognized by North Carolina statutory and case law. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-631 provides that \u201call rights afforded adult offenders\u201d are conferred upon respondents in juvenile adjudication hearings, subject to certain exceptions which are not applicable to the case at bar. In In re Dulaney, 74 N.C. App. 587, 328 S.E.2d 904 (1985), this court held that a juvenile respondent \u201cis entitled to have the evidence evaluated by the same standards as apply in criminal proceedings against adults.\u201d Id. at 588, 328 S.E.2d at 906.\nAs in adult proceedings, \u201cin order to withstand a motion to dismiss the charges contained in a juvenile petition, there must be substantial evidence of each of the material elements of the offense charged.\u201d In re Bass, 77 N.C. App. 110, 115, 334 S.E.2d 779, 782 (1985); see also State v. Myrick, 306 N.C. 110, 291 S.E.2d 577 (1982). The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference of fact which may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Easterling, 300 N.C. 594, 268 S.E.2d 800 (1980).\nWe will consider each charge in the case at bar separately to determine whether the evidence, in the light most favorable to the State, establishes the material elements of each charge sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.\nA. Assault By Pointing A Gun.\nAs to the charge that the respondent committed assault by pointing a gun, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he intentionally and deliberately pointed the gun at CL. We disagree. CL testified that JA extracted the gun from one of her father\u2019s briefcases and pointed it at her. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-34 provides, in pertinent part,\nIf any person shall point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise, whether such gun or pistol be loaded or not loaded, he shall be guilty of an assault ....\nThe pointing of a gun need only be done without legal justification to constitute assault under Section 14-34. State v. Thornton, 43 N.C. App. 564, 259 S.E.2d 381 (1979). As respondent does not contend that he had a legal justification to point the gun at the victim, the evidence in the light most favorable to the State compels us to find that there was sufficient evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss the petition for assault by pointing a gun.\nB. First Degree Sexual Offense.\nThe respondent next alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of first degree sexual offense. Specifically, he contends that the State failed to establish that there had been a sexual act committed. The elements of first degree sexual offense as applied to the facts of this case where the child-prosecutrix is 4 years old, are set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-27.4(a)(1) which states as follows:\n(a) A person is guilty of a sexual offense in the first degree if the person engages in a sexual act:\n(1) With a victim who is a child under the age of 13 years and the defendant is at least 12 years old and is at least four years older than the victim:\nThe term \u201csexual act\u201d as used in this statute means cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus, or anal intercourse. State v. DeLeonardo, 315 N.C. 762, 764, 340 S.E.2d 350, 353 (1986). It also means the penetration, however slight, by any object into the genital or anal opening of another\u2019s body. Id.\nTestimonial evidence by Ms. Mansour-Norris, an expert in pediatric social work, established that CL told her that JA put his penis in her vagina and that CL demonstrated with anatomically correct dolls, the male doll\u2019s penis going into the female doll\u2019s buttocks to show what JA did to her. This evidence was corroborated by the testimony of Investigator Barringer of the Durham Police Department and CL\u2019s mother, both of whom were present at the interview between Ms. Mansour-Norris and CL.\nAdditionally, testimony by the physician, Dr. St. Claire, who examined and treated CL the day after the incident revealed that CL\u2019s anal area was red and irritated with a mucoid discharge that had not been present at previous examinations. Dr. St. Claire opined that the redness and discharge in the anal area \u201ccould be consistent with anal penetration.\u201d Further, Carolyn Cole testified that in an interview with her, CL stated that JA hurt her \u201cbum\u201d with his penis and that he touched and hurt her.\nMost significantly, CL testified as follows:\nQ. CL, when JA touched you, did he touch you on the inside or on the outside?\nA. Outside.\nQ. On the outside? Did he ever touch you with anything on the inside?\nA. Hmm . . . unh-unh.\nQ. All right. And can you tell me where it is that your body got touched?\nA. Hmm . . . just on my bum.\nQ. And who touched your bum?\nA. Hmm . . . JA.\nQ. What did he touch your bum with?\nA. His penis.\nThis evidence, in the light most favorable to the State and allowing every reasonable inference to be resolved in favor of the State, is sufficient to establish each element of sexual offense to withstand a motion to dismiss.\nIll\nRespondent next assigns error to the admission of hearsay testimony to substantively prove an element of first degree sexual offense. His argument is two-fold: 1) that the trial court improperly allowed as evidence inadmissible and prejudicial hearsay testimony, and 2) that such evidence was admitted in violation of his constitutional right to confrontation. We will address each of these contentions separately.\nA. Admissibility of the Hearsay.\nRespondent contends that the hearsay statements of Mrs. L, Carolyn Cole, Donna Mansour-Norris and Investigator Barringer were improperly admitted and that the admission of such evidence requires dismissal of the charge of first degree sexual offense.\nFirst, we note that the testimony of Carolyn Cole was admitted for purposes of corroboration only. Respondent does not contend that the statements of this witness were not corroborative of the statements of CL. As such, we find that her testimony was properly admitted for that purpose.\nAs to the hearsay testimony of Ms. Mansour-Norris, respondent contends that the testimony was not admissible hearsay because the interviews conducted with CL were for the purpose of preparing for litigation and not for the purpose of medical diagnosis. With respect to statements made for purposes \u00f3f medical diagnosis and treatment, N.C.R. Evid. 803(4) (1988) provides that the following statements are not excluded by the hearsay rule:\n(4) Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. \u2014 Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.\nIn defining the pertinency of medical diagnosis or treatment, this court, in State v. Jones, 89 N.C. App. 584, 367 S.E.2d 139 (1988), stated that:\nIn determining the purpose of a medical examination our Courts have considered the following factors: (1) whether the examination was requested by persons involved in the prosecution of the case; (2) the proximity of the examination to the victim\u2019s initial diagnosis; (3) whether the victim received a diagnosis or treatment as a result of the examination; and (4) the proximity of the examination to the trial date.\nId. at 591, 367 S.E.2d at 144 (citations omitted).\nConsidering the facts of this case in light of the factors set forth in Jones, we find that: 1) CL was brought to Dr. St. Claire by her mother for medical evaluation the day after she revealed the incident to her mother. Moreover, the Duke Child Protection Team coordinated its findings with the physician to constitute the team\u2019s medical evaluation. 2) The proximity of the examination to diagnosis was one day; Mrs. L took CL to the clinic the next day after seeing Dr. St. Claire. 3) CL was seen by Ms. Mansour-Norris for one month after she was first diagnosed as being sexually abused. She was seen again by Dr. St. Claire for follow-up on the treatment which she recommended. 4) The trial was held approximately three months after the last visit with Dr. St. Claire. On these facts, we find that the statements CL made to Ms. Mansour-Norris were for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. Accordingly, Ms. Mansour-Norris\u2019 testimony that CL told her that JA anally penetrated her is admissible as a statement for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment within the meaning of Rule 803(4). See Jones, 89 N.C. App. 584, 367 S.E.2d 139 (hearsay statements made to a Duke Child Protective Team social worker held admissible despite the fact that the victim\u2019s mother took her to Duke Medical Center Pediatric Clinic on the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney).\nAs to the hearsay statements of Investigator Barringer, respondent contends that this testimony did not qualify as a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis within the meaning of N.C. R. Evid. 803(4) (1988) as Investigator Barringer was neither a physician nor a psychiatrist.\nInvestigator Barringer\u2019s testimony does not fall within any recognized hearsay exception, and thus, should not have been admitted. However, as Investigator Barringer heard the out of court declarations at the same time and under the same circumstances as Ms. Mansour-Norris, the admission of Investigator Barringer\u2019s hearsay testimony is harmless error. Inasmuch as we have determined that Ms. Mansour-Norris\u2019 hearsay testimony was properly admitted, the fact that Investigator Barringer testified to information overheard at the same time as Ms. Mansour-Norris negates the possibility that defendant was prejudiced by its admission. We find that there was no prejudicial error in the admission of Investigator Barringer\u2019s hearsay testimony. This assignment of error is overruled.\nB. The Right to Confrontation.\nRespondent further assigns error to the trial judge\u2019s admission of hearsay testimony against him when the declarant testified in court and did not testify as to the hearsay evidence presented by other witnesses. He contends that he was denied his constitutional right to cross-examination in that the declarant was available and the admitted hearsay testimony did not fit into any exceptions to the hearsay rule.\nThe Supreme Court of the United States set forth the following two-part test for determining when incriminating statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule also meet the requirements of the Confrontation Clause:\nFirst, in conformance with the Framers\u2019 preference for face-to-face accusation, the Sixth Amendment establishes a rule of necessity. In the usual case . . ., the prosecution must either produce or demonstrate the unavailability of, the declarant whose statement it wishes to use against the defendant. Second, once a witness is shown to be unavailable, \u201chis statement is admissible only if it bears adequate \u2018indicia of reliability.\u2019 Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.\u201d\nIdaho v. Wright, --- U.S. \u2014, \u2014, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146, 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 651-652 (1990) (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)).\nIn California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970), the United States Supreme Court explained that the effect of the Confrontation Clause is to bar admission of some evidence that would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. The Court, in Green, also set forth the relationship between hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause:\nWhile it may readily be conceded that hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are generally designed to protect similar values, it is quite a different thing to suggest that the overlap is complete and that the Confrontation Clause is nothing more or less than a codification of the rules of hearsay and their exceptions as they existed historically at common law. Our decisions have never established such a congruence; indeed, we have more than once found a violation of confrontation values even though the statements in issue were admitted under an arguably recognized hearsay exception.\nId. at 155-56, 26 L.Ed.2d at 495 (citations omitted).\nFurther, in Green, the Court set forth the underlying purpose for the Confrontation Clause:\nOur own decisions seem to have recognized at an early date that it is [the] literal right to confront the witness at the time of trial that forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause:\n\u201cThe primary object of the constitutional provision in question was to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits, such as were sometimes admitted in civil cases, being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.\u201d Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242-243, 39 L. Ed. 409, 411 (1985).\nGreen, 399 U.S. at 157-58, 26 L.Ed.2d at 496-97 (emphasis added).\nThe crucial difference between the requirements of the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule is the unavailability of the witness for cross-examination. The exceptions under which the hearsay testimony in this case was admitted do not require the witness to be unavailable. However, for purposes of the Confrontation Clause the declarant must be unavailable, either legally or factually.\nRespondent alleges that he did not have an opportunity to cross-examine CL as to the hearsay testimony of Ms. Mansour-Norris and Investigator Barringer. The facts clearly do not support his argument. CL was available and, indeed, testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. On direct examination, CL answered questions to establish her competency to testify and at no point during or after her testimony did respondent challenge the competency of her testimony. As such, she was not unavailable for cross-examination. Respondent could have recalled the witness, subject to the trial judge\u2019s discretion. Having failed to do so, he cannot be heard to complain on appeal and, therefore, this assignment of error is overruled.\nIV\nFor the foregoing reasons, we find\nNo error.\nJudges Phillips and Eagles concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Jane Rankin Thompson, for the State.", "Ann F. Loflin for respondent-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In the Matter of: J. A., Respondent-Appellant\nNo. 9014DC596\n(Filed 20 August 1991)\n1. Infants \u00a7 18 (NCI3d); Assault and Battery \u00a7 26 (NCI4th( \u2014 juvenile delinquency proceeding \u2014 assault by pointing gun\u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss a delinquency petition for assault by pointing a gun where the four-year-old victim testified that the juvenile took a gun from one of her father\u2019s briefcases and pointed it at her.\nAm Jur 2d, Assault and Battery \u00a7 31; Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children \u00a7 54.\n2. Infants \u00a7 18 (NCI3d); Rape and Allied Offenses \u00a7 5 (NCI3d) \u2014 juvenile delinquency proceeding \u2014 first degree sexual offense \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence in a juvenile delinquency proceeding was sufficient to support a conviction of first degree sexual offense where it tended to show that an expert in pediatric social work interviewed the child victim who told her that the juvenile put his penis in her vagina and then demonstrated anal intercourse with anatomically correct dolls to show what the juvenile had done to her; this evidence was corroborated by the testimony of a Durham Police Department investigator and the victim\u2019s mother, both of whom were present at the interview between the social worker and the victim; testimony by the physician who examined the victim the day after the incident revealed symptoms consistent with her claim of anal intercourse; and the victim herself testified that the juvenile placed his penis in her anus.\nAm Jur 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children \u00a7 54; Rape \u00a7\u00a7 97, 98, 101; Sodomy \u00a7\u00a7 45, 71, 72.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 73.5 (NCI3d) \u2014 statement for purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment \u2014 admissible hearsay\nTestimony by a pediatric social worker with the Duke Child Protection Team that the four-year-old victim told her that the juvenile anally penetrated the victim, though hearsay, was admissible as a statement for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 803(4).\nAm Jur 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence \u00a7 255; Infants \u00a7 17.5.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 73.1 (NCI3d)\u2014 improper hearsay testimony\u2014 similar testimony already properly admitted \u2014 error not prejudicial\nInasmuch as a social worker\u2019s hearsay testimony was properly admitted, the fact that a Durham police investigator testified to information overheard at the same time as the social worker negated the possibility that defendant was prejudiced by its admission.\nAm Jur 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence \u00a7 255; Infants \u00a7 17.5.\n5. Constitutional Law \u00a7 349 (NCI4th)\u2014 hearsay testimony\u2014 witness available for cross-examination \u2014 right of confrontation not violated\nThere was no merit to respondent\u2019s contention that he did not have an opportunity to cross-examine a sexual offense victim as to the hearsay testimony of a pediatric social worker and a police investigator, and that his constitutional right of confrontation was therefore violated, since the victim was available, testified at trial, and was subject to cross-examination; on direct examination the victim answered questions to establish her competency to testify, but at no point during or after her testimony did respondent challenge the competency of her testimony; and respondent did not attempt to recall the witness.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 957.\nAPPEAL by respondent from order entered 12 December 1989 in DURHAM County District Court by Judge Richard G. Chaney. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 January 1991.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Jane Rankin Thompson, for the State.\nAnn F. Loflin for respondent-appellant." }, "file_name": "0720-01", "first_page_order": 750, "last_page_order": 760 }