{
  "id": 11362017,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES WOODROW RAMER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ramer",
  "decision_date": "2001-10-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA00-1094",
  "first_page": "611",
  "last_page": "613",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 611"
    }
  ],
  "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": "143 L. Ed. 2d 114",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "rejecting argument that the defendant's statement written by a police officer and read back to the defendant for verification should be suppressed because of defendant's reading impairment and low IQ rendered him unable to understand and knowingly waive his rights"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "525 U.S. 1180",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11237402,
        11237542,
        11237416,
        11237480,
        11237450,
        11237391,
        11237520,
        11237620,
        11237653,
        11237590,
        11237463,
        11237434,
        11237339,
        11237500,
        11237566
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "rejecting argument that the defendant's statement written by a police officer and read back to the defendant for verification should be suppressed because of defendant's reading impairment and low IQ rendered him unable to understand and knowingly waive his rights"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/525/1180-03",
        "/us/525/1180-11",
        "/us/525/1180-04",
        "/us/525/1180-08",
        "/us/525/1180-06",
        "/us/525/1180-02",
        "/us/525/1180-10",
        "/us/525/1180-14",
        "/us/525/1180-15",
        "/us/525/1180-13",
        "/us/525/1180-07",
        "/us/525/1180-05",
        "/us/525/1180-01",
        "/us/525/1180-09",
        "/us/525/1180-12"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "501 S.E.2d 625",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "639"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 N.C. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1659773
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "400"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/348/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11355762
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "240",
          "parenthetical": "expert is precluded from offering opinion that child has been sexually abused if child's statement is the only foundation"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/146/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "547 S.E.2d 430",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 N.C. 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        135585,
        135627,
        135955,
        135741,
        135711
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/353/0397-04",
        "/nc/353/0397-03",
        "/nc/353/0397-01",
        "/nc/353/0397-02",
        "/nc/353/0397-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "540 S.E.2d 794",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "799"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N.C. App. 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9440684
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "227"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/141/0220-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "475 U.S. 412",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6204292
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "421"
        },
        {
          "page": "421"
        },
        {
          "page": "421"
        },
        {
          "page": "421"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/475/0412-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 5389,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.24003773965200287
    },
    "sha256": "3dbec7a7963b2e968a409e9df8becef2c2bdec0f4bac3d7125e4bd8cb66c7ba0",
    "simhash": "1:8d2d65223b7e1fdf",
    "word_count": 883
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:58.205856+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges CAMPBELL and THOMAS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES WOODROW RAMER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nJames Woodrow Ramer (Defendant), by writ of certiorari, appeals his conviction of first-degree statutory sexual offense, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.4(a)(l) (1994), for engaging in a sexual act with a child under the age of thirteen.\nDefendant makes two arguments in support for a new trial. We reject both of these arguments. Defendant first argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statement he gave to detectives of the Davidson County Sheriffs Department. Defendant contends his third grade reading ability (a fact not in dispute) prevented him from intelligently and understandingly waiving his Miranda rights. The trial court found Defendant \u201cwas read the standard [Miranda] rights form [and] indicated that he understood that form.\u201d The trial court then concluded the statement was \u201cfreely and voluntarily given.\u201d A defendant\u2019s statement given after Miranda warnings is admissible if the defendant is fully aware of the nature of the rights being waived and the consequence of such a waiver. Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410, 421 (1986). In this case, the trial court found Defendant understood his rights, and Defendant\u2019s reading ability is therefore not material to this inquiry.\nDefendant finally argues the trial court erred in allowing a licensed clinical social worker, accepted as an expert by the trial court, to testify the child was sexually abused. We disagree. \u201c[A]n expert may testify to his opinion that a child has been sexually abused as long as this conclusion relates to a diagnosis based on the expert\u2019s examination of the child during the course of treatment.\u201d State v. Youngs, 141 N.C. App. 220, 227, 540 S.E.2d 794, 799 (2000), cert. denied, 353 N.C. 397, 547 S.E.2d 430 (2001). In this case, the expert had provided therapy to the child over a period of several months prior to his testimony and thus was qualified to offer his opinion that the child was sexually abused. This is so even though the expert testified he based his opinion in part on statements the child made to him during the treatment. See State v. Stancil, 146 N.C. App. 234, 240, \u2014 S.E.2d \u2014, \u2014 (2001) (expert is precluded from offering opinion that child has been sexually abused if child\u2019s statement is the only foundation). Accordingly, we find no error.\nAffirmed.\nJudges CAMPBELL and THOMAS concur.\n. Of course, the statement must also be the product of a free and deliberate choice, Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410, 421 (1986), but Defendant does not argue police coercion on this appeal.\n. Defendant also argues that because he could read at only a third grade level, it was error to allow the State to present into evidence his written statement given to the sheriff detectives. Our review of the record, however, does not reveal this statement was presented into evidence at trial. In any event, the undisputed evidence is that the written statement (prepared by one of the detectives) was read to Defendant and he agreed before signing the statement that it correctly reflected his oral statement. Thus, the failure of the trial court to make findings on Defendant\u2019s ability to read and understand the written statement is not material. See State v. Hipps, 348 N.C. 377, 400, 501 S.E.2d 625, 639 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1180, 143 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1999) (rejecting argument that the defendant\u2019s statement written by a police officer and read back to the defendant for verification should be suppressed because of defendant\u2019s reading impairment and low IQ rendered him unable to understand and knowingly waive his rights).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth J. Weese, for the State.",
      "James Woodrow Ramer pro se defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES WOODROW RAMER\nNo. COA00-1094\n(Filed 16 October 2001)\n1. Confessions and Incriminating Statements\u2014 intelligent and understanding waiver of Miranda rights \u2014 defendant with third grade reading ability\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree statutory sexual offense case under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.4(a)(l) by denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the statement defendant gave to detectives even though defendant contends his third grade reading ability prevented him from intelligently and understanding^ waiving his Miranda rights because the trial court found that defendant understood his rights, and therefore, defendant\u2019s reading ability is not material to this inquiry.\n2. Evidence\u2014 expert testimony \u2014 opinion\u2014sexual abuse\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree statutory sexual offense case under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.4(a)(l) by allowing a licensed clinical social worker accepted as an expert at trial to testify the child was sexually abused, because: (1) an expert may testify to his opinion that a child has been sexually abused as long as this conclusion relates to a diagnosis based on the expert\u2019s examination of the child during the course of treatment; and (2) even though the expert testified he based his opinion in part on statements the child made to him during treatment, the expert was qualified to provide his opinion when he provided therapy to the child over a period of several months prior to his testimony.\nOn writ of certiorari to review order dated 22 May 1998 by Judge C. Preston Cornelius in Davidson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 September 2001.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth J. Weese, for the State.\nJames Woodrow Ramer pro se defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0611-01",
  "first_page_order": 643,
  "last_page_order": 645
}
