{
  "id": 11915064,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ALAN PARKER, SR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parker",
  "decision_date": "1995-07-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA94-1045",
  "first_page": "328",
  "last_page": "342",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 N.C. App. 328"
    }
  ],
  "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": "31 ALR4th 120",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 ALR3d 333",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 ALR2d 796",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 ALR3d 887",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 S.E.2d 197",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "203"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565376
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "192"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 S.E.2d 624",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "626",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Green, 296 N.C. 183, 192, 250 S.E.2d 197, 203 (1978)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 N.C. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2517272
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "455",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Green, 296 N.C. 183, 192, 250 S.E.2d 197, 203 (1978)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/322/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 S.E.2d 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "637"
        },
        {
          "page": "637"
        },
        {
          "page": "637"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.C. App. 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358259
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "191"
        },
        {
          "page": "191"
        },
        {
          "page": "191"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/83/0179-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "393 S.E.2d 551",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "553",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brooks, 83 N.C. App. 179, 191, 349 S.E.2d 630, 637 (1986)"
        },
        {
          "page": "553",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brooks, 83 N.C. App. 179, 191, 349 S.E.2d 630, 637 (1986)"
        },
        {
          "page": "553",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brooks, 83 N.C. App. 179, 191, 349 S.E.2d 630, 637 (1986)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N.C. App. 534",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523866
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "537",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brooks, 83 N.C. App. 179, 191, 349 S.E.2d 630, 637 (1986)"
        },
        {
          "page": "537",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brooks, 83 N.C. App. 179, 191, 349 S.E.2d 630, 637 (1986)"
        },
        {
          "page": "537",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brooks, 83 N.C. App. 179, 191, 349 S.E.2d 630, 637 (1986)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/99/0534-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "391 S.E.2d 171",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "175"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5305171
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "548-49"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0542-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 S.E.2d 451",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "454"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572601
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "284"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 S.E.2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "728"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2571664
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "59"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0052-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 S.E.2d 304",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "324"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4760257
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "356"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 S.E.2d 353",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "signature of grand jury foreman pursuant to statute is merely directory and does not invalidate an indictment"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 N.C. App. 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547480
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "signature of grand jury foreman pursuant to statute is merely directory and does not invalidate an indictment"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/45/0087-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S.E. 806",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1932,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "no error in failure of grand jury foreman to endorse a bill of indictment or to include in the indictment the names of the State's witnesses who were examined before the grand jury"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N.C. 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628137
      ],
      "year": 1932,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "no error in failure of grand jury foreman to endorse a bill of indictment or to include in the indictment the names of the State's witnesses who were examined before the grand jury"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0680-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E.2d 623",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547751
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E. 608",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1927,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "609"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N.C. 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607094
      ],
      "year": 1927,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "338"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0336-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 S.E.2d 245",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "253"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4696763
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "244"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "440 S.E.2d 797",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "815",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 244, 333 S.E.2d 245, 253 (1985)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 N.C. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2527903
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "598",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 244, 333 S.E.2d 245, 253 (1985)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/335/0567-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "405 S.E.2d 145",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "152"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2556466
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0061-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1108,
    "char_count": 33685,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1112567934882873e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5707593377065613
    },
    "sha256": "28c83165cf887b7998fe812e91f0a60ec5cb101ae9426fee710749bb72a07ae3",
    "simhash": "1:cf2bd56250b654b4",
    "word_count": 5467
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:59.579385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and MARTIN, MARK D., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ALAN PARKER, SR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nDefendant brings forward numerous assignments of error. After careful review of the record and briefs, we find no prejudicial error.\nI.\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying both his motions for mistrial. We disagree. Defendant\u2019s first motion for mistrial came during M\u2019s testimony. Prior to trial, defendant filed a Motion in Limine to exclude testimony about defendant\u2019s alleged threat to blow up the battered women\u2019s shelter where the victims were staying. During M\u2019s testimony, in response to the State\u2019s question asking why M and his family left the shelter, nine year old M answered, \u201cThe reason that we left is because my daddy forced [sic] to bomb the place.\u201d Defendant immediately moved for mistrial. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard M\u2019s statement and that it was not a proper statement for their consideration. S also testified that when the family left the battered women\u2019s shelter, their mother went to the hospital \u201cand then my dad threatened to bomb the place.\u201d Defendant\u2019s objection was sustained, the answer was stricken from the record and the jury was instructed to disregard that statement. Defendant did not make a motion for mistrial during S\u2019s testimony.\nDefendant\u2019s second motion for mistrial concerned a suspicious package that was found in one of the entrances to the courthouse. The package was found after M and S testified. After the package was found, the courthouse was cordoned off and searched and extra security measures were taken. The trial court informed the jury that the package was in the possession of the State Bureau of Investigation and that the court could not discuss the contents of the package because law enforcement officials were conducting an ongoing investigation. The trial court also informed the jury that the courthouse had been searched and that law enforcement officials had allowed the courthouse to be occupied again. The trial court asked each juror individually whether anything that had occurred would affect their verdict and whether each juror would still be able to render a fair and impartial verdict. The jurors each assured the court of their ability to serve.\nA motion for mistrial is within the trial court\u2019s discretion. State v. Bonney, 329 N.C. 61, 73, 405 S.E.2d 145, 152 (1991).\n\u201cNot every disruptive event occurring during the course of trial requires the court automatically to declare a mistrial,\u201d and if in the sound discretion of the trial judge it is possible despite the untoward event, to preserve defendant\u2019s basic right to receive a fair trial before an unbiased jury, then the motion for mistrial should be denied. On appeal, the decision of the trial judge in this regard is entitled to the greatest respect. He is present while the events unfold and is in a position to know far better than the printed record can ever reflect just how far the jury may have been influenced by the events occurring during the trial and whether it has been possible to erase the prejudicial effect of some emotional outburst. Therefore, unless his ruling is clearly erroneous so as to amount to a manifest abuse of discretion, it will not be disturbed on appeal.\nState v. Moore, 335 N.C. 567, 598, 440 S.E.2d 797, 815 (1994) (quoting State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 244, 333 S.E.2d 245, 253 (1985)). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motions for mistrial.\nII.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in holding that the State was not bound by the charge as differently stated in its bill of particulars. Defendant was indicted in case number 93 CRS 1014 of first degree sexual offense. In response to defendant\u2019s request for a bill of particulars pursuant to G.S. 15A-925, the State responded:\n93-CRS-1014 \u2014 Indecent Lib. \u2014 this occurred in summer of 1992 sometime after the above events and occurred in a garage at their home in Saluda. Defendant stripped the victim and put his penis in the victim\u2019s butt.\nThe function of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of the evidence the State intends to offer against him and to limit the evidence to the items and transactions stated in the bill of particulars. State v. Wadford, 194 N.C. 336, 338, 139 S.E. 608, 609 (1927). Defendant contends that since the charge of indecent liberties is not a lesser included offense of first degree sexual offense, the trial court should have dismissed the first degree sexual offense charge. A bill of particulars is not a part of the indictment, nor is it a substitute for or amendment to the indictment. Id. The State\u2019s evidence at trial was consistent with the information provided in the bill of particulars. Defendant was in no way misled. The clerical error in the bill of particulars listing the charge as \u201cIndecent Lib.\u201d did not amend the original indictment charging first degree sexual offense. Defendant was not prejudiced by this clerical mistake. This assignment of error fails.\nDefendant also contends that the grand jury was improperly convened and that the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the indictments. G.S. 15A-622(g) provides that, \u201cAt any time when a grand jury is in recess, a superior court judge may, upon application of the prosecutor or upon his own motion, order the grand jury reconvened for the purpose of dealing with a matter requiring grand jury action.\u201d In denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the indictment, the trial court made findings of fact to the effect that: On 4 January 1993 a grand jury was duly selected and sworn and discharged after completing its work. Sometime after 29 January 1993, the Henderson County District Attorney, Alan C. Leonard, made an oral application to the trial court judge to have the grand jury reconvened. As a result of the oral application to the trial court, the trial court ordered and authorized the District Attorney to institute the necessary proceedings for reconvening the grand jury. On 8 February 1993, the grand jury was reconvened and issued the true Bills of Indictments against defendant. The trial court concluded that the oral application made by the District Attorney to the trial court constituted substantial compliance with G.S. 15A-622(g) and denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nAssuming, without deciding, that the provisions of G.S. 15A-622(g) require a written application to the trial court or a written order from the trial judge, we have held in other contexts that certain technical violations concerning the grand jury proceedings do not render an otherwise valid indictment fatally defective. In State v. Reep, 12 N.C. App. 125, 182 S.E.2d 623 (1971), this Court held that failure to return bills of indictment strictly according to statute was not prejudicial error. See also State v. Avant, 202 N.C. 680, 163 S.E. 806 (1932) (no error in failure of grand jury foreman to endorse a bill of indictment or to include in the indictment the names of the State\u2019s witnesses who were examined before the grand jury); State v. Midyette, 45 N.C. App. 87, 262 S.E.2d 353 (1980) (signature of grand jury foreman pursuant to statute is merely directory and does not invalidate an indictment). Defendant has shown no prejudice from the lack of a written application or order of the trial court. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nIII.\nDefendant further contends the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s counsel\u2019s motion to be released as defendant\u2019s attorney. During the course of the trial, the State called defendant\u2019s counsel to testify during a voir dire hearing to determine whether evidence had been tampered with or altered. After hearing the testimony of defense counsel, J. Michael Edney, and two other witnesses, the trial court concluded that defense counsel did not unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal any evidence in the case. Rule 5.2(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct states:\nIf, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that the lawyer or a lawyer in his or her firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of the client, the lawyer shall withdraw from the conduct of the trial and his or her firm, if any, shall not continue representation in the trial, except that the lawyer may continue the representation and the lawyer or a lawyer in his or her firm may testify under the circumstances enumerated in (a) above.\nHere, defendant\u2019s attorney did not testify on behalf of defendant, but on a collateral matter regarding the attorney\u2019s handling of certain evidence. Rule 5.2(c) provides that if a lawyer learns that he \u201cmay be called as a witness other than on behalf of his client, the lawyer may continue the representation until it is apparent that the lawyer\u2019s testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client.\u201d N.C.R. Professional Conduct, Rule 5.2(c). Furthermore, defendant\u2019s counsel\u2019s testimony was taken during a voir dire hearing outside the presence of the jury. Defendant has shown no prejudice from defense counsel\u2019s testimony. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIV.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to intervene during the State\u2019s closing argument. Defendant contends that the State argued in its closing argument that the State\u2019s witnesses were not paid to testify. The trial court, however, had already signed orders for expert witness fees to be paid to the State\u2019s three expert witnesses. The trial court had informed counsel for both sides that he would be absent during certain portions of the closing arguments. Defendant did not object to the trial judge being absent from the courtroom during portions of closing argument, nor did defendant raise any objections at trial to the State\u2019s argument that its expert witnesses had not been paid to testify. Upon failure to object to statements made during closing argument, the standard of review is whether the statements amounted to such gross impropriety as to require the trial court to act on its own motion. State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. 326, 356, 307 S.E.2d 304, 324 (1983). Counsel should refrain from representations in oral argument that are incorrect or untrue. Even so, we conclude that on these facts, the statements did not amount to such gross impropriety as to amount to prejudicial error.\nDefendant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury as to each count of the indictments separately. The trial court in its charge to the jury stated:\nNow, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there are 12 cases involved, and the court is going to submit to you a separate verdict sheet for each case. You will note that the verdict sheet, at the top, will have the heading of the case with the word verdict, and that will be followed by this language.\nThe trial court then proceeded to inform the jury that they could either vote guilty or not guilty on each charge in the indictment which was represented by each of the separate verdict sheets. When reviewing a trial court\u2019s charge to the jury, the instructions must be considered in their entirety. State v. Davis, 321 N.C. 52, 59, 361 S.E.2d 724, 728 (1987). The trial court\u2019s instructions, taken in their entirety, make it clear that the jury was to consider each charge separately in its deliberations. See State v. Schultz, 294 N.C. 281, 284, 240 S.E.2d 451, 454 (1978). This assignment of error also fails.\nV.\nDefendant\u2019s next several assignments of error concern the testimony of various witnesses and the allegedly erroneous admission of evidence. We conclude that all of these assignments of error are without merit. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to introduce the results of medical examinations of other minor children who did not testify at trial. Defendant offered the medical examinations of several other minor children who were children of the codefendants who allegedly participated and witnessed the abuse of the victims who testified at trial. The trial court held that defendant\u2019s evidence was inadmissible extrinsic evidence prohibited by Rule 608(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence and irrelevant evidence pursuant to Rule 402. We agree.\nRule 608(b) provides that, \u201c[s]pecific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609 may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.\u201d Defendant testified that he did not abuse any of his children. Defendant also offered the medical examination of A Robinson, a child of one of the codefendants. S testified that when defendant took her to the woods behind her grandmother\u2019s house and abused her in front of several people holding lit candles, another young girl, A Robinson, \u201cstarted screaming at first and then she jumped up and she had no clothes on and she started running and her dad jumped up and started chasing after her through the woods.\u201d Defendant offered the medical examination of A Robinson to show that she showed no signs of sexual abuse in an effort to support his credibility. The results of A Robinson\u2019s medical examination is the type of extrinsic evidence which is prohibited by the rule when it is offered to support the credibility of a witness. Furthermore, defendant was not charged with sexually abusing A Robinson; S did not testify that she saw A Robinson being abused. Whether A Robinson was abused by a codefendant is irrelevant to the charges against defendant and was properly excluded pursuant to Rule 402.\nDefendant contends that the State\u2019s expert witness, Dr. Charles Marston, was allowed to testify concerning matters in which he was not competent to testify. Dr. Marston was allowed to testify as an expert in the field of pediatrics without objection. Dr. Marston testified about the results of his examination of the youngest victim, G Parker. He testified that an examination of G revealed vaginal trauma \u201cstatistically [] consistent with previous penetration.\u201d Dr. Marston\u2019s testimony in this regard is well within the knowledge of experts in pediatrics.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in allowing M Parker to testify concerning defendant\u2019s use of marijuana just before the episodes of abuse. When evidence leading up to a crime is part of the scenario which helps explain the setting, there is no error in permitting the jury to view the criminal episode in the context in which it happened. State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542, 548-49, 391 S.E.2d 171, 175 (1990). Furthermore, defendant did not object to S testifying that defendant smoked marijuana on several occasions. \u201cWhere evidence is admitted over objection, and the same evidence has been previously admitted or is later admitted without objection, the benefit of the objection is lost.\u201d State v. Townsend, 99 N.C. App. 534, 537, 393 S.E.2d 551, 553 (1990) (quoting State v. Brooks, 83 N.C. App. 179, 191, 349 S.E.2d 630, 637 (1986)).\nDefendant\u2019s wife, Sandra Parker, also testified that she and defendant were involved in cashing an altered check. Defendant\u2019s objection was sustained and the objectionable testimony stricken from the record. Defendant\u2019s assignments of error in this regard are without merit.\nDefendant further contends that the trial court erred in allowing Detective Walter Harper to testify regarding statements made by S in an interview with a Department of Social Services social worker. Defendant, however, introduced into the evidence the entire videotape of Detective Harper\u2019s interview with S which further corroborated S\u2019s testimony. \u201cWhere evidence is admitted over objection, and the same evidence has been previously admitted or is later admitted without objection, the benefit of the objection is lost.\u201d State v. Townsend, 99 N.C. App. 534, 537, 393 S.E.2d 551, 553 (1990) (quoting State v. Brooks, 83 N.C. App. 179, 191, 349 S.E.2d 630, 637 (1986)).\nIn a related assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing Detective Harper to testify concerning S\u2019s statement about Michael McAbee. McAbee had been previously tried and convicted in Henderson County for second degree murder. S told Detective Harper in the interview that McAbee was \u201c[t]he Mike that burned his baby.\u201d The trial court sustained defendant\u2019s objection to Detective Harper\u2019s testimony regarding his knowledge of McAbee, allowed defendant\u2019s motion to strike and instructed the jury to disregard the information. This assignment of error is without merit.\nDefendant further contends that the trial court erred in allowing Pam Perkins, program director for the battered women\u2019s shelter known as Mainstay, to testify regarding several calls made by defendant to Mainstay inquiring about the whereabouts of his wife and children. Ms. Perkins testified that the caller identified himself as defendant but that she did not previously know his voice so as to be able to personally identify defendant as the caller. Defendant, however, testified acknowledging that he made several calls to Mainstay to inquire about his children and that eventually he was informed that if he continued to call they would inform the sheriff\u2019s department. \u201cWhere evidence is admitted over objection, and the same evidence has been previously admited or is later admitted without objection, the benefit of the objection is lost.\u201d State v. Townsend, 99 N.C. App. 534, 537, 393 S.E.2d 551, 553 (1990) (quoting State v. Brooks, 83 N.C. App. 179, 191, 349 S.E.2d 630, 637 (1986)).\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of Dr. John Reinhardt. Defendant offered Dr. Reinhardt to support the testimony of codefendant Tabitha Taylor who was cross-examined by the State about a statement she made to Dr. Reinhardt during an interview. Defendant offered Dr. Reinhardt\u2019s testimony to discuss the entire interview so that the statement used to impeach Ms. Taylor by the State could be considered in its proper context. Rule 608(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence specifically prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to prove or disprove specific instances of conduct.\nFinally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach one of its own witnesses. John Rogers testified he saw defendant and several of his codefendants walking around the trailer park at approximately 2:00 a.m. When Rogers testified that he did not remember what the people were wearing, the prosecutor asked Rogers if Rogers remembered what he told him in the presence of Detective Harper at 1:00 p.m. that afternoon in the prosecutor\u2019s office. Defendant answered, \u201cI said the girls were wearing white shirts and nothing on underneath them, and that\u2019s all that I remember.\u201d When the prosecutor asked what the other people in the crowd were wearing, Rogers answered, \u201cthe girls were wearing white shirts and men were wearing dark clothes.\u201d Defendant contends that the State was allowed to improperly impeach its witness with a prior inconsistent statement.\nA witness may be cross-examined by confronting him with prior statements inconsistent with any part of his testimony, but where such questions concern matters collateral to the issues, the witness\u2019s answers on cross-examination are conclusive, and the party who draws out such answers will not be permitted to contradict them by other testimony.\nState v. Williams, 322 N.C. 452, 455, 368 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1988) (quoting State v. Green, 296 N.C. 183, 192, 250 S.E.2d 197, 203 (1978)). The State did not attempt to offer extrinsic evidence, such as Detective Harper\u2019s additional testimony, to challenge the truthfulness of Rogers\u2019s memory.\nWe need not address defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error as they are clearly without merit. In sum, defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges WYNN and MARTIN, MARK D., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Gail E. Weis, for the State.",
      "J. Michael Edney for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ALAN PARKER, SR.\nNo. COA94-1045\n(Filed 5 July 1995)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 557 (NCI4th)\u2014 first-degree sexual offense and indecent liberties \u2014 defendant\u2019s threats to blow up women\u2019s shelter \u2014 suspicious package at courthouse \u2014 no mistrial\nThere was no abuse of discretion in not granting a mistrial in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where defendant\u2019s children testified that their family had left a battered women\u2019s shelter because their father had threatened to blow up the shelter, but defendant\u2019s objection was sustained, the answer stricken, and the jury instructed to disregard that statement. There was also no abuse of discretion in not granting a mistrial where a suspicious package was found in an entrance to the courthouse after that testimony; the courthouse was cordoned off and searched and extra security measures were taken; the trial court told the jury that the package was in the possession of the SBI and that the court could not discuss the contents of the package because officials were conducting an investigation; the court also informed the jury that the courthouse had been searched and that law enforcement officials had allowed the courthouse to be occupied again; the court asked each juror individually whether anything that had occurred would affect their verdict and whether each juror would still be able to render a fair and impartial verdict; and the jurors each assured the court of their ability to serve.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 646.\n2. Indictment, Information, and Criminal Pleadings \u00a7 42 (NCI4th)\u2014 first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with minor \u2014 bill of particulars \u2014 variance with indictment\nThe trial court did not err in a prosection for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where defendant was indicted in case number 93 CRS 1014 for first-degree sexual offense and the State\u2019s response to defendant\u2019s request for a bill of particulars listed the charge as \u201c93-CRS-1014 \u2014 Indecent Lib.\u201d and included a statement that the victim had been anally penetrated. The State\u2019s evidence at trial was consistent with the information provided in the bill of particulars, defendant was in no way misled, the clerical error in listing the charge as \u201cIndecent Lib.\u201d did not amend the original indictment charging first degree sexual offense, and defendant was not prejudiced.\nAm Jur 2d, Indictments and Informations \u00a7\u00a7 159 et seq.\n3. Grand Jury \u00a7 2 (NCI4th)\u2014 grand jury \u2014 reconvened\u2014oral application\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where a grand jury was selected and discharged, the district attorney made an oral application to the trial judge to have the grand jury reconvened, the court ordered that the grand jury be reconvened, and defendant was indicted. Assuming that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-622(g) requires a written application to the trial court or a written order from the trial judge, certain technical violations concerning the grand jury proceedings do not render an otherwise valid indictment fatally defective.\nAm Jur 2d, Grand Jury \u00a7\u00a7 10, 11.\n4. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 2593 (NCI4th)\u2014 attorney\u2014 motion to be released from representation \u2014 denied\u2014testimony at evidence tampering hearing\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child by denying defense counsel\u2019s motion to be released from representation where defense counsel was called as a witness during a voir dire hearing to determine whether evidence had been tampered with or altered. Defendant\u2019s attorney did not testify on behalf of defendant, but on a collateral matter regarding the attorney\u2019s handling of certain evidence; Rule 5.2(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer may continue the representation until it is apparent that the lawyer\u2019s testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client. Defense counsel\u2019s testimony was taken during a voir dire hearing outside the presence of the jury and defendant has shown no prejudice.\nAm Jur 2d, Witnesses \u00a7\u00a7 97-99.\nDefense attorney as witness for his client in state criminal case. 52 ALR3d 887.\nCalling accused\u2019s counsel as a prosecution witness as improper deprivation of right to counsel. 88 ALR2d 796.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 441 (NCI4th)\u2014 prosecutor\u2019s closing argument \u2014 State\u2019s witnesses \u2014 not paid to testify \u2014 fees already approved \u2014 no objection \u2014 no prejudice\nThere was no gross impropriety amounting to prejudicial error in a prosecution for first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where the prosecutor argued to the jury that the State\u2019s witnesses were not paid to testify but the court had already signed orders for expert witness fees for three of the State\u2019s witnesses. However, the court had informed counsel that it would be absent during certain portions of the closing arguments and defendant did not object to the trial judge being absent or to the State\u2019s argument.\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7\u00a7 692, 694.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 754 (NCI4th)\u2014 indictments \u2014 multiple counts \u2014 instructions\nThere was no error in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where defendant contended that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury as to each count of the indictments separately, but the court\u2019s instructions, taken in their entirety, make it clear that the jury was to consider each charge separately in its deliberations.\nAm Jur. 2d, Trial \u00a7\u00a7 1242, 1243, 1247.\n7. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 3130 (NCI4th)\u2014 child sexual abuse \u2014 medical examinations of children other than victims \u2014 offered to support defendant \u2014 not admissible\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child by refusing to allow defendant to introduce the results of medical examinations of other minor children who did not testify at trial but who had allegedly participated in and witnessed the abuse of the victims who did testify and defendant testified that he did not abuse any of his children. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 608(b).\nAm Jur 2d, Witnesses \u00a7\u00a7 632 et seq.\n8. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 2333 (NCI4th)\u2014 child sexual abuse \u2014 pediatrician\u2014qualified as expert\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where defendant contended that a State\u2019s witness was allowed to testify concerning matters in which he was not competent to testify, but the witness was allowed to testify without objection as an expert in pediatrics and he testified concerning his examination of the youngest victim that there was vaginal trauma statistically consistent with previous penetration.\nAm Jur 2d, Witnesses \u00a7\u00a7 53-56.\n9. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 364 (NCI4th)\u2014 child sexual abuse \u2014 use of marijuana \u2014 context of crime \u2014 admissible\nThere was no error in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child in allowing one victim to testify concerning defendant\u2019s use of marijuana just before the abuse. When evidence leading up to a crime is part of the scenario which helps explain the setting, there is no error in permitting the jury to view the criminal episode in the context in which it happened. Furthermore, defendant did not object to another witness testifying that defendant smoked marijuana on several occasions.\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7 450.\n10. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 762 (NCI4th)\u2014 interview with social worker \u2014 testimony by detective \u2014 tape of interview admitted by defendant \u2014 no prejudice from detective\u2019s testimony\nThere was no error in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where defendant contended that the court erred in allowing a detective to testify regarding statements made by a victim in an interview with a social worker but defendant introduced the entire videotape.\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7 687.\nAdmissibility of videotape film in evidence in criminal trial. 60 ALR3d 333.\nModern status of rule regarding necessity for corroboration of victim\u2019s testimony in prosecution for sexual offense. 31 ALR4th 120.\n11. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 747 (NCI4th)\u2014 inadmissible evidence \u2014 objection sustained, motion to strike allowed, jury instructed \u2014 no error\nThere was no error in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where defendant contended that the court erred in allowing certain testimony, but the trial court sustained defendant\u2019s objection to the testimony, allowed defendant\u2019s motion to strike, and instructed the jury to disregard the information.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7 222.\n12. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 762 (NCI4th)\u2014 evidence of same import admitted without objection \u2014 no error\nThere was no error in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where defendant contended that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of the program director for a battered women\u2019s clinic regarding several calls made by defendant to the clinic because the caller identified himself as defendant but the program director did not previously know his voice. Defendant in his testimony acknowledged making calls to the clinic to inquire about his children.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7 753.\n13. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 3130 (NCI4th)\u2014 testimony of doctor supporting testimony of codefendant \u2014 excluded\u2014 no error\nThere was no error in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child where defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of a doctor which was offered in support of the testimony of a codefendant who was cross-examined about a statement she had made to the doctor. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 608(b) prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to prove or disprove specific instances of conduct.\nAm Jur 2d, Witnesses \u00a7\u00a7 992, 1001.\n14. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 2929 (NCI4th)\u2014 State\u2019s witness \u2014 examination by State \u2014 contradiction with prior statement \u2014 no extrinsic evidence\nThere was no error in a prosecution for multiple counts of first-degree sexual abuse and taking indecent liberties with a child where one of the State\u2019s witnesses testified that he had seen defendant and several of the. codefendants walking around the trailer park but did not remember what they were wearing and the prosecutor asked if the witness remembered what he had told him in the presence of a detective and the witness testified as to what he had said that people in the crowd were wearing. The State did not attempt to offer extrinsic evidence to challenge the truthfulness of its own witness\u2019s memory.\nAm Jur 2d, Witnesses \u00a7\u00a7 992-996.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered .4 February 1994 by Judge Zoro J. Guice, Jr., in Henderson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 June 1995.\nDefendant was convicted of eight counts of first degree sexual offense, G.S. 14-27.4(a)(2), and four counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, G.S. 14-202.1. Defendant was sentenced to eight consecutive life sentences for the eight first degree sexual offense convictions and four consecutive ten year terms of imprisonment for the taking indecent liberties with a child convictions. At trial the State\u2019s evidence tended to show the following: Defendant\u2019s three children, M, S and G Parker, all testified to several specific instances of sexual abuse. M, nine years old, testified to three specific instances of abuse. On one occasion, defendant took M to his grandmother\u2019s house, where she removed their clothes and got on top of him on the bed and jumped up and down on his private parts. Defendant watched and did nothing. On another occasion, defendant took M out to the woods where his grandmother and four other people were present. Defendant took M\u2019s clothes off and inserted something \u201chard\u201d into his rectum. One of the spectators, Travis Gordon, put his penis in M\u2019s mouth. Defendant also placed his penis in M\u2019s mouth. M testified to another similar incident with the same four people.\nS, defendant\u2019s eleven year old daughter, also testified that defendant abused her. On one occasion, when her mother was absent, defendant called her into the bedroom where he and two other men were smoking \u201cpot.\u201d Defendant pulled down S\u2019s pants and threw her on the floor and inserted a spoon into her vagina and moved it around. Defendant took blood that was on the spoon, put it in a cup and drank it while the others were standing around singing with lit candles. .\nG, defendant\u2019s seven year old daughter, testified that defendant committed similar acts of sexual abuse to her. G testified that on one occasion, defendant placed a brush handle into her vagina. Medical examinations of the three victims corroborated each of the victims\u2019 testimony and indicated a diagnosis of sexual abuse. Dr. John Carter, an expert in adolescent psychiatry, evaluated the three victims and found that each victim experienced emotional and behavioral characteristics consistent with sexual abuse.\nDefendant testified and denied any abuse. From judgment entered upon the jury\u2019s guilty verdicts, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Gail E. Weis, for the State.\nJ. Michael Edney for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0328-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 376
}
