{ "id": 11357186, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLYDE EARNEST WILLIAMSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williamson", "decision_date": "2001-10-02", "docket_number": "No. COA00-982", "first_page": "325", "last_page": "339", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "146 N.C. App. 325" } ], "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": "272 S.E.2d 916", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "918", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Harbison, 293 N.C. 474, 483, 238 S.E.2d 449, 454 (1977)" }, { "page": "918", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "918", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 729", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135619, 135982, 135568, 135866, 135706 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0729-01", "/nc/353/0729-05", "/nc/353/0729-04", "/nc/353/0729-03", "/nc/353/0729-02" ] }, { "cite": "519 U.S. 1098", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11766724, 11766148, 11766277, 11766217, 11766569, 11766409, 11766923, 11766525, 11766862, 11766028, 11766096, 11766644, 11766460, 11766781 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/519/1098-11", "/us/519/1098-03", "/us/519/1098-05", "/us/519/1098-04", "/us/519/1098-09", "/us/519/1098-06", "/us/519/1098-14", "/us/519/1098-08", "/us/519/1098-13", "/us/519/1098-01", "/us/519/1098-02", "/us/519/1098-10", "/us/519/1098-07", "/us/519/1098-12" ] }, { "cite": "324 S.E.2d 834", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "840" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 760", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4752702 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "768" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0760-01" ] }, { "cite": "513 S.E.2d 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132086 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "525 S.E.2d 218", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "222", "parenthetical": "footnotes omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N.C. App. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11241294 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "640", "parenthetical": "footnotes omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/136/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 S.E.2d 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575810, 8575850, 8575823, 8575802, 8575837 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0622-02", "/nc/281/0622-05", "/nc/281/0622-03", "/nc/281/0622-01", "/nc/281/0622-04" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E.2d 643", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "645" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 N.C. App. 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549680 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/14/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 S.E.2d 52", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "57-58", "parenthetical": "although note itself was \"best evidence\" of its contents, testimony regarding what note said did not prejudice defendant" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 N.C. App. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524410 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "349", "parenthetical": "although note itself was \"best evidence\" of its contents, testimony regarding what note said did not prejudice defendant" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/98/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 S.E.2d 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "637" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 N.C. App. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358259 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "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", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "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 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "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": "540 S.E.2d 370", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155875, 1155604, 1155893, 1155862, 1155645 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0111-01", "/nc/351/0111-04", "/nc/351/0111-03", "/nc/351/0111-05", "/nc/351/0111-02" ] }, { "cite": "515 S.E.2d 732", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "738" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 N.C. App. 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11220522 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "540" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/133/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "489 S.E.2d 380", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "387", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 1002 (1992)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551242 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "91", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 1002 (1992)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 S.E.2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "128-29", "parenthetical": "detective's testimony that \" 'playboy playmate workout' \" videotape seized from defendant's home was same videotape being presented as State's exhibit sufficient to admit videotape to corroborate victim's testimony that defendant showed him videotape of people not wearing clothes" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2567611 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533-34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 S.E.2d 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "454" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565271 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 N.C. App. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2675921 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "141", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Harbison, 293 N.C. 474, 483, 238 S.E.2d 449, 454 (1977)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/50/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "507 S.E.2d 906", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "909" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. App. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11201779 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/131/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "550 S.E.2d 10", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "14" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11432583 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "549 S.E.2d 875", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878-79", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. Evid. 901(a) (1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11433718 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. Evid. 901(a) (1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "417 S.E.2d 256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2501957, 2498451, 2497272, 2497849, 2501053 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0287-01", "/nc/331/0287-02", "/nc/331/0287-03", "/nc/331/0287-05", "/nc/331/0287-04" ] }, { "cite": "411 S.E.2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "381" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523656 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "680" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0675-01" ] }, { "cite": "540 S.E.2d 404", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "413", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Haskins, 104 N.C. App. 675, 680, 411 S.E.2d 376, 381 (1991), disc. review denied, 331 N.C. 287, 417 S.E.2d 256 (1992)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. App. 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9442290 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "564", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Haskins, 104 N.C. App. 675, 680, 411 S.E.2d 376, 381 (1991), disc. review denied, 331 N.C. 287, 417 S.E.2d 256 (1992)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/141/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 145", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. App. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11434065 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/143/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 L. Ed. 2d 725", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 S.E.2d 813", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "821" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570316 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "656" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 S.E.2d 734", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "745" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798808 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "654" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "537 S.E.2d 483", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132011, 132268, 131949, 132212, 132255 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0595-03", "/nc/350/0595-04", "/nc/350/0595-05", "/nc/350/0595-01", "/nc/350/0595-02" ] }, { "cite": "351 S.E.2d 277", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4733270 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "666" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "514 S.E.2d 116", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "119" }, { "page": "120", "parenthetical": "prior acts occurring seven and ten years prior not too remote to be considered relevant and admissible" }, { "page": "120" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 N.C. App. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11215554 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "35" }, { "page": "36" }, { "page": "36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/133/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "379 S.E.2d 842", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2482061 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135749, 135883, 135973, 135941 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0382-04", "/nc/353/0382-03", "/nc/353/0382-01", "/nc/353/0382-02" ] }, { "cite": "406 S.E.2d 876", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "891" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2554614 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "304" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "534 S.E.2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N.C. App. 706", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9497672 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/139/0706-01" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 122", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135586, 135716, 135621, 135595, 135666 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0271-03", "/nc/353/0271-02", "/nc/353/0271-04", "/nc/353/0271-01", "/nc/353/0271-05" ] }, { "cite": "535 S.E.2d 614", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617" }, { "page": "617", "parenthetical": "acts sufficiently similar where \"defendant befriended the women, took them to a secluded place, pinned the women down, became aggressive with them, sexually assaulted and raped them and afterwards acted like nothing had happened\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 N.C. App. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12124012 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "212" }, { "page": "212" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/140/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 S.E.2d 118", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "119" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 574", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2569213 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0574-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2569839 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 S.E.2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 8, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted" }, { "page": "299" }, { "page": "300" }, { "page": "300" }, { "page": "300" }, { "page": "300", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867709 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "615", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted" }, { "page": "615" }, { "page": "616" }, { "page": "616" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "515 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "893" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131924 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "495" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "545 S.E.2d 190", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206-07", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1)" }, { "page": "207" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135771 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "426", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "487 S.E.2d 803", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "806" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11792372 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "101" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0095-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1225, "char_count": 34157, "ocr_confidence": 0.773, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.6091022114979013e-07, "percentile": 0.8202655830513671 }, "sha256": "b94f06b94d41f8d42ce2a3e9768e0ee1767bfed37a3e39a4e1ecfe6a74154620", "simhash": "1:827b5438743f1192", "word_count": 5436 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:58.205856+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and TYSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLYDE EARNEST WILLIAMSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Judge.\nClyde Earnest Williamson (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals judgments and sentencing upon convictions of taking indecent liberties with a child, crimes against nature, and statutory sex offenses. We find no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.\nThe evidence presented at trial tended to establish that the victim, \u201cJoannie,\u201d was fifteen years old in 1998 when she began spending time with defendant. Joannie, along with her father and sister, were assisting defendant with the building of a new house. Joannie helped defendant with such chores as mending walls, hanging sheetrock, and painting. Joannie testified that she spent virtually every day helping defendant around his house. During construction on his house, defendant resided in a nearby trailer.\nJoannie testified that during this time she became friends with a fourteen-year-old girl named \u201cJeannie\u201d who was also helping defendant with his house. Joannie testified that defendant would usually take everyone home for the night after work on his house was completed for the day. Within a couple of weeks of working for defendant, Joannie and Jeannie began returning to defendant\u2019s trailer after defendant took the others home. The three would listen to music and spend time outside. Sometimes defendant would take the girls home, and sometimes the girls would spend the night with defendant in his trailer. Joannie testified that she and Jeannie spent about two nights a week at defendant\u2019s trailer.\nJoannie testified that within a few weeks of her spending nights with defendant, he began to act in a sexual manner towards her. Joannie testified that in the first incident with her, defendant instructed her to take a shower, which she did. Defendant then placed a towel on his bed and told Joannie to lay on the towel so that he could \u201ccheck [her] for a yeast infection.\u201d Joannie testified that defendant then \u201chad his tongue down near [her] private area\u201d and that he also inserted his finger into her vagina \u201ca couple of times.\u201d\nJoannie testified regarding four separate occasions on which the same sequence of events occurred, although she could not remember if defendant had inserted his fingers into her vagina each time. Joannie stated that after each incident, defendant would get \u201cone of his wipes\u201d which he kept in his night stand and wipe her off. She further testified that about the same time that her first sexual incident with defendant occurred, she observed defendant engaging in the same conduct with Jeannie, instructing her to take a shower, stating that he must \u201ccheck her for a yeast infection,\u201d and then performing oral sex on her. Defendant threatened that if Joannie ever disclosed the abuse, he would put Joannie\u2019s father in jail or send her back to Washington State from where she had moved.\nJoannie testified that defendant took Polaroid photographs of her \u201cabout every time [she and Jeannie] stayed the night.\u201d Joannie stated that in some of the photographs she was nude or partially clothed. She also testified that defendant kissed her a couple of times, took a video of her while she was taking a bath, and played a pornographic video entitled \u201cWith Love, Loni\u201d for her and Jeannie.\nDuring the times Joannie and Jeannie were with defendant, he provided the girls with wine coolers and cigarettes. Defendant also had the girls smoke marijuana \u201calmost every time [they] stayed the night.\u201d Although defendant did not pay the girls for any work performed on his house, defendant allowed the girls to drive his car, and he would take them to Wal-Mart and buy them jewelry, clothes, toys, underwear and bras. The girls were allowed to wear the underwear and bras when with defendant, but they were not permitted to take them home.\nJoannie\u2019s friend, Alisha Wallace (\u201cAlisha\u201d), testified that she went to defendant\u2019s trailer with Joannie on various occasions. Alisha testified that on one occasion, she saw a nude photograph of Joannie on defendant\u2019s desk in his bedroom. Alisha also testified that defendant had hugged her and \u201crubbed up against [her]\u201d and remarked that her breasts were \u201cbigger than Joannie\u2019s.\u201d Alisha witnessed defendant hugging Joannie and saw him \u201cgrab her behind.\u201d Alisha testified that Joannie told her defendant took nude pictures of her and had a video of her. Joannie later told Alisha and her mother, Jackie Wallace, of the events which had transpired with defendant. Jackie Wallace notified the Department of Social Services.\nThe State also presented the testimony of Detective David Grant of the Jackson County Sheriff\u2019s Department regarding his interviews with Joannie and Alisha, as well as items he recovered pursuant to a search of defendant\u2019s trailer. These items included a box of \u201cSummer\u2019s Eve Feminine Cleansing Cloths\u201d recovered from defendant\u2019s night stand, \u201cvarious articles of female undergarments,\u201d a nude photograph of Joannie, and a video entitled \u201cWith Love, Loni.\u201d In addition, Christa Farash (\u201cChrista\u201d), the victim in defendant\u2019s prior Florida conviction for lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor, testified about the events surrounding her sexual abuse.\nDefendant testified on his own behalf, denying all allegations. On 24 February 2000, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on one count of taking indecent liberties with a child, four counts of crimes against nature, and four counts of statutory sex offense. Defendant appeals.\nOn appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the following evidence: (1) testimony regarding defendant\u2019s prior conviction for lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor; (2) the videotape \u201cWith Love, Loni\u201d and accompanying testimony regarding its contents; (3) testimony regarding the contents of a photograph not entered into evidence; (4) Detective Grant\u2019s testimony regarding statements made to him by Jackie Wallace; (5) Alisha Wallace\u2019s testimony regarding defendant\u2019s behavior towards her; and (6) a photograph of Joannie clothed in a sports bra and shorts.\nI.\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence testimony regarding defendant\u2019s prior Florida conviction for lewd and lascivious behavior involving witness Christa Farash. For the first time on appeal, defendant argues that the majority of Christa\u2019s testimony regarding defendant\u2019s sexual conduct towards her is inadmissible as \u201crepressed memory\u201d testimony without accompanying expert testimony. This Court has held that repressed memory testimony \u201cmust be accompanied by expert testimony on the subject of memory repression so as to afford the jury a basis upon which to understand the phenomenon and evaluate the reliability of testimony derived from such memories.\u201d Barrett v. Hyldburg, 127 N.C. App. 95, 101, 487 S.E.2d 803, 806 (1997).\nChrista stated on voir dire that some of her memories regarding her sexual abuse perpetrated by defendant were brought to light through therapy aimed at helping her deal with the events. Following voir dire, defense counsel voiced his frustration with having to contend with evidence not originally presented at the prior Florida trial. However, counsel never objected to the introduction of Christa\u2019s testimony on grounds that it was improper repressed memory testimony without the necessary accompanying expert testimony. Rather, defense counsel stated that he was solely \u201crequesting the court exclude [the evidence] under 404(b) in that the only thing it\u2019s going to do is attempt to set forth a propensity and attack my client\u2019s character.\u201d There was no discussion before the trial court of repressed memory testimony and its requirements for admission.\nPursuant to Rule 10(b)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure,... \u201ca party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make\u201d in order to preserve a question for appellate review.\nState v. Call, 353 N.C. 400, 426, 545 S.E.2d 190, 206-07 (2001) (quoting N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1)) (holding defendant abandoned argument that testimony was \u201cinherently unreliable\u201d and violated his constitutional rights where he failed to argue such grounds to trial court). Appellate courts will not entertain an argument where the issue was not \u201c \u2018 \u201craised and determined in the trial court.\u201d \u2019 \u201d Id. at 426, 545 S.E.2d at 207 (quoting State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 495, 515 S.E.2d 885, 893 (1999)).\nMoreover, because defendant has failed to assert that the introduction of Christa\u2019s testimony without accompanying expert testimony was plain error, this argument is not preserved for our review. See id.; N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(4) (appellate court may review for plain error only where \u201cthe judicial action questioned is specifically and distinctly contended to amount to plain error\u201d). We therefore only address defendant\u2019s argument that the evidence was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b), as such was the basis for defendant\u2019s objection at trial.\nThe trial court in this case admitted Christa\u2019s testimony under Rule 404(b) of the Rules of Evidence to show intent and \u201cthat there existed in the mind of the defendant a plan, scheme, system, or design involving the crime charged.\u201d As a general rule, Rule 404(b) provides that \u201c[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1999). Such evidence may, however, \u201cbe admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.\u201d Id.\n[E]ven though evidence may tend to show other crimes, wrongs, or acts by the defendant and his propensity to commit them, it is admissible under Rule 404(b) so long as it also \u201cis relevant for some purpose other than to show that defendant has the propensity for the type of conduct for which he is being tried.\u201d\nState v. Frazier, 344 N.C. 611, 615, 476 S.E.2d 297, 299 (1996) (emphasis omitted) (quoting State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 206, 362 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1987)).\nDefendant argues that admission of the evidence under Rule 404(b) was improper because insufficient similarities exist between the acts surrounding the prior conviction and the alleged acts perpetrated here, that the acts are too remote in time, and that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudice to defendant. We disagree.\nIn Frazier, our Supreme Court addressed the issue of admissibility of witness testimony offered to demonstrate the existence of a common plan or scheme by the defendant to sexually abuse adolescent female family members. Frazier, 344 N.C. at 615, 476 S.E.2d at 299. The Court noted that \u201c[t]he test for determining whether such evidence is admissible is whether the incidents establishing the common plan or scheme are sufficiently similar and not so remote in time as to be more probative than prejudicial under the balancing test of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 403.\u201d Id. (citing State v. Boyd, 321 N.C. 574, 577, 364 S.E.2d 118, 119 (1988)); see also State v. Harris, 140 N.C. App. 208, 212, 535 S.E.2d 614, 617 (test for admission of prior sex offenses to show common plan, scheme, system or design is two-part: \u201c. . . \u2018whether the incidents are sufficiently similar; and second, whether the incidents are too remote in time\u2019 \u201d (citation omitted)), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 271, 546 S.E.2d 122 (2000).\nThe testimony in Frazier tended to prove that the defendant\u2019s prior acts of sexual abuse occurred over a period of approximately twenty-six years and in a similar pattern. Frazier, 344 N.C. at 616, 476 S.E.2d at 300. The Supreme Court noted that all of the victims were adolescents at the time defendant began his sexual assaults; that in each instance defendant slowly began touching the victim and gradually reached more serious abuse; that during the period of the abuse, defendant bought his victims gifts and gave them money; that he threatened each of them that if she revealed to anyone what he was doing, she would be sent away or suffer some other severe sanction; and that all of the victims lived with or near defendant during the course of the abuse. Id. The Court concluded that \u201cthis evidence presents a classic example of a common plan or scheme.\u201d Id.; see also, Harris, 140 N.C. App. at 212, 535 S.E.2d at 617 (acts sufficiently similar where \u201cdefendant befriended the women, took them to a secluded place, pinned the women down, became aggressive with them, sexually assaulted and raped them and afterwards acted like nothing had happened\u201d).\nIn the present case, the similarities between the incidents involving Christa and Joannie also establish defendant\u2019s common plan or scheme. Both acts involved defendant befriending adolescent girls. In each case, Christa and Joannie spent significant amounts of time unsupervised with defendant on a daily basis. Both Christa and Joannie periodically spent the night with defendant, and sometimes in the company of another adolescent girl. Both victims helped with chores around defendant\u2019s house, but defendant did not pay them for their work. In both instances, defendant bought the victims several gifts, including toys. In each case, defendant allowed the victims to drive his car and he provided them with marijuana, alcohol and cigarettes while in his company. Defendant showed affection to both Christa and Joannie in the form of hugging and kissing them. In both cases, the sexual abuse occurred in defendant\u2019s home. Defendant showed pornographic videos to both Christa and Joannie. In both instances, defendant instructed the victims to take showers before sexual activity, performed oral sex on the victims, and put his finger inside their vaginas.\n\u201cIt is not necessary that the similarities between the two situations rise to the level of the unique and bizarre.\u201d State v. Aldridge, 139 N.C. App. 706, 714, 534 S.E.2d 629, 635 (citing State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 304, 406 S.E.2d 876, 891 (1991)), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 382, 546 S.E.2d 114 (2000). \u201cRather, the similarities simply must tend to support a reasonable inference that the same person committed both the earlier and later acts.\u201d Id. As in Frazier, we hold that the evidence presented in this case \u201cpresents a classic example of a common plan or scheme.\u201d Frazier, 344 N.C. at 616, 476 S.E.2d at 300.\nThe Frazier court also rejected the defendant\u2019s argument that the testimony was too remote in time to be relevant or probative, given that the prior acts occurred over a time period of seven to twenty-seven years prior to the trial. Id. at 615, 476 S.E.2d at 300. The Court noted:\nThis Court has been liberal in allowing evidence of similar offenses in trials on sexual crime charges. . . . Subsequent to Jones, it has permitted testimony as to prior acts of sexual misconduct which occurred more than seven years earlier. In State v. Shamsid-Deen, 324 N.C. 437, 379 S.E.2d 842 (1989), a case tried prior to the effective date of the Rules of Evidence, we held that it was not error for the trial court to admit the testimony of sisters of the victim that their father had also sexually abused them. There, the defendant\u2019s prior sexual misconduct with the sisters occurred during a twenty-year period. Likewise, we recently held that a ten-year gap between instances of similar sexual misbehavior did not render them so remote in time as to negate the existence of a common plan or scheme.\nId. at 615-16, 476 S.E.2d at 300 (citations omitted).\n\u201cSignificantly, our Supreme Court has been \u2018markedly liberal in admitting evidence of similar sex offenses by a defendant for the purposes now enumerated in rule 404(b).\u2019 \u201d State v. Blackwell, 133 N.C. App. 31, 35, 514 S.E.2d 116, 119 (quoting State v. Cotton, 318 N.C. 663, 666, 351 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1987)), cert. denied, 350 N.C. 595, 537 S.E.2d 483 (1999). That Court has held that a ten-year gap between incidents does not render evidence of the prior bad act too remote in time to be admissible under 404(b). See State v. Penland, 343 N.C. 634, 654, 472 S.E.2d 734, 745 (1996) (\u201c[g]iven the commonality of the distinct and bizarre behaviors, the ten-year gap between the incidents did not \u2018negate[] the plausibility of the existence of an ongoing and continuous plan to engage ... in such... activities\u2019 \u201d (quoting State v. Shane, 304 N.C. 643, 656, 285 S.E.2d 813, 821 (1982))), cert. denied, Penland v. North Carolina, 519 U.S. 1098, 136 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1997); see also, Blackwell, 133 N.C. App. at 36, 514 S.E.2d at 120 (prior acts occurring seven and ten years prior not too remote to be considered relevant and admissible).\nIn the present case, defendant\u2019s trial for sexual crimes perpetrated against Christa occurred in July 1988. The events complained of in the instant case began occurring around June 1998, approximately ten years following defendant\u2019s prior conviction. The record further indicates that defendant spent at least one year in prison following his 1988 conviction. \u201cIt is proper to exclude time defendant spent in prison when determining whether prior acts are too remote.\u201d State v. Berry, 143 N.C. App. 187, 198, 546 S.E.2d 145, 154 (citing Blackwell, 133 N.C. App. at 36, 514 S.E.2d at 120), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 729, - S.E.2d - (2001). We conclude the gap in time is not too remote to warrant admission of the evidence under Rule 404(b), given our Supreme Court\u2019s liberal treatment of admitting prior evidence of similar sexual offenses, and its express holding that a ten-year gap between incidents is not sufficiently remote in time to preclude admission under 404(b).\nNor is there merit in defendant\u2019s argument that the trial court should have excluded the evidence because its probative value was outweighed by its prejudice to defendant. Under Rule 403, evidence, although relevant, \u201cmay be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 403 (1999). \u201cThe question of whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial \u2018is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court.\u2019 \u201d State v. Chavis, 141 N.C. App. 553, 564, 540 S.E.2d 404, 413 (2000) (quoting State v. Haskins, 104 N.C. App. 675, 680, 411 S.E.2d 376, 381 (1991), disc. review denied, 331 N.C. 287, 417 S.E.2d 256 (1992)). Defendant has failed to show an abuse of discretion. These assignments of error are overruled.\nII.\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a videotape seized by Detective Grant, and his accompanying testimony regarding the content of the video. Defendant argues (1) that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the videotape because no voir dire was conducted prior to its admission, and (2) that Detective Grant\u2019s characterization of the videotape as \u201cpornographic\u201d was inadmissible.\nThe videotape was a pornographic video entitled \u201cWith Love, Loni.\u201d Joannie identified the videotape at trial as the same videotape that defendant played for her and Jeannie. Joannie stated twice, without objection, that the videotape was a \u201cporno movie.\u201d The videotape was admitted into evidence following the direct testimony of Detective Grant. Detective Grant identified the videotape inside the cassette case as the same videotape he recovered from defendant\u2019s bedroom pursuant to a search warrant. The videotape exhibited the title \u201cWith Love, Loni.\u201d Detective Grant further testified that he viewed the videotape, that it was \u201cpornographic\u201d in nature, and that it depicted \u201cvarious sex acts between males and females.\u201d\nRule 901 provides that \u201c \u2018[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.\u2019 \u201d State v. Redd, 144 N.C. App. 248, 252, 549 S.E.2d 875, 878-79 (2001) (quoting N.C.R. Evid. 901(a) (1999)). \u201cUpon a proper foundation, videotapes, like photographs, are admissible at trial for either illustrative or substantive purposes.\u201d State v. Mason, 144 N.C. App. 20, 24, 550 S.E.2d 10, 14 (2001).\nMoreover, the requirements for admission here differ from the requirements of laying a foundation for a videotape that actually depicts the actions of the victim or the defendant. See, e.g., State v. Mewborn, 131 N.C. App. 495, 498, 507 S.E.2d 906, 909 (1998). Rather, the videotape in this case is \u201creal\u201d evidence, or an object \u201c \u2018offered as having played an actual, direct role in the incident giving rise to the trial.\u2019 \u201d State v. Bryant, 50 N.C. App. 139, 141, 272 S.E.2d 916, 918 (1980) (quoting State v. Harbison, 293 N.C. 474, 483, 238 S.E.2d 449, 454 (1977)). \u201cWhen real evidence is properly identified, it is, in general, freely admissible.\u201d Id. at 140-41, 272 S.E.2d at 918 (citations omitted). It must simply \u201c \u2018be identified as the same object involved in the incident in order to be admissible\u2019 \u201d and as not having undergone any material change. Id. at 141, 272 S.E.2d at 918 (citation omitted). Authentification of real evidence \u201c \u2018can be done only by calling a witness, presenting the exhibit to him and asking him if he recognizes it and, if so, what it is.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting 1 Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 26 (Brandis rev. 1973)). Moreover, \u201c[a]s there are no specific rules for determining whether an object has been sufficiently identified, the trial judge possesses, and must exercise, sound discretion.\u201d Id.\nDefendant\u2019s assertion that the trial court was required to conduct voir dire prior to admitting the videotape is erroneous. Detective Grant\u2019s testimony, establishing that the videotape was the same videotape recovered from defendant\u2019s bedroom, laid the proper foundation for its admission. See State v. Rael, 321 N.C. 528, 533-34, 364 S.E.2d 125, 128-29 (1988) (detective\u2019s testimony that \u201c \u2018playboy playmate workout\u2019 \u201d videotape seized from defendant\u2019s home was same videotape being presented as State\u2019s exhibit sufficient to admit videotape to corroborate victim\u2019s testimony that defendant showed him videotape of people not wearing clothes).\nWe also reject defendant\u2019s argument that the videotape was not properly introduced because both Joannie and Detective Grant only \u201cidentified a video case\u201d and not the actual contents of the videotape. In the same argument, however, defendant states that there is no \u201cindication in the record that the video was shown to the jury in whole or in part.\u201d Taking defendant\u2019s statement as true, the jury only viewed the \u201cvideo case,\u201d and therefore Joannie\u2019s identification of the video as the one defendant played for her, and Detective Grant\u2019s identification of the video as the one seized from defendant\u2019s trailer was sufficient for its admission.\nDefendant also argues that Detective Grant\u2019s testimony regarding the contents of the videotape violated the \u201cbest evidence rule.\u201d \u201cRule 1002 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, commonly known as the \u2018best evidence rule,\u2019 provides that, \u2018[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.\u2019 \u201d State v. York, 347 N.C. 79, 91, 489 S.E.2d 380, 387 (1997) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 1002 (1992)).\nEven if Detective Grant\u2019s statements should not have been admitted, we find no prejudicial error in light of previous testimony that the videotape was a \u201cporno movie,\u201d as well as defendant\u2019s failure to object to such characterizations. See State v. Campbell, 133 N.C. App. 531, 540, 515 S.E.2d 732, 738 (\u201cevidentiary errors are harmless unless [a] defendant proves that absent the error, a different result would have been reached [at trial]\u201d), disc. review denied, 351 N.C. 111, 540 S.E.2d 370 (1999); 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)) (\u201c[t]he settled law of this State, unchanged by the adoption of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, is that \u2018[w]here 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\u2019 \u201d). These assignments of error are overruled.\nIII.\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing Alisha Wallace to testify that she saw a nude photograph of Joannie in defendant\u2019s bedroom where the State did not offer the photograph into evidence. Defendant argues that Alisha\u2019s testimony violates the best evidence rule. Although we agree with defendant that the photograph itself is the best evidence of its contents, defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by Alisha\u2019s testimony that she observed the photograph in defendant\u2019s bedroom.\nJoannie previously testified, without objection, that defendant took nude photographs of her, and that she brought Alisha into defendant\u2019s bedroom and showed her some of the nude photographs that defendant kept in his bedroom. Joannie also previously testified in detail regarding the contents of the photographs that she showed Alisha, without objection. In light of the fact that such evidence was already introduced, any error in the admission of Alisha\u2019s testimony did not prejudice defendant. See State v. Jones, 98 N.C. App. 342, 349, 391 S.E.2d 52, 57-58 (1990) (although note itself was \u201cbest evidence\u201d of its contents, testimony regarding what note said did not prejudice defendant). Moreover, the fact that Alisha observed a nude photograph of Joannie in defendant\u2019s bedroom was \u201cnot a vital part of the State\u2019s evidence.\u201d See In re Potts, 14 N.C. App. 387, 390, 188 S.E.2d 643, 645 (best evidence rule not invoked where contents of evidence not in question and \u201cnot a vital part of the State\u2019s evidence\u201d), cert. denied, 281 N.C. 622, 190 S.E.2d 471 (1972).\nIV.\nDefendant assigns error to the admission of Detective Grant\u2019s testimony corroborating the testimony of Alisha\u2019s mother, Jackie Wallace. Jackie testified that she observed defendant hug Joannie \u201ca couple of times.\u201d Detective Grant testified regarding statements Jackie made to him during his investigation and interview of her, including a statement that defendant hugged Joannie \u201cexcessively.\u201d The trial court gave a limiting instruction that Detective Grant\u2019s testimony was only for the purpose of corroborating Jackie Wallace\u2019s prior testimony. Defendant argues that Detective Grant\u2019s testimony that Jackie Wallace stated defendant hugged Joannie \u201cexcessively\u201d was not corroborative of her prior testimony that defendant hugged Joannie \u201ca couple of times.\u201d\n\u201cEvidence of an out-of-court statement of a witness, related by the in-court testimony of another witness, may be offered as substantive evidence or offered for the limited purpose of corroborating the credibility of the witness making the out-of-court statement.\u201d State v. Ford, 136 N.C. App. 634, 640, 525 S.E.2d 218, 222 (2000) (footnotes omitted). \u201cThis Court has long held that \u2018corroborative\u2019 means \u2018[t]o strengthen; to add weight or credibility to a thing by additional and confirming facts or evidence.\u2019 \u201d State v. Brown, 350 N.C. 193, 204, 513 S.E.2d 57, 64 (1999) (citations omitted) (holding that contested witnesses\u2019 testimony about prior conversations with other witnesses, \u201calthough not precisely identical to the original testimony, tended to strengthen and confirm the testimony of the first witnesses. As such, the secondary witnesses\u2019 statements constituted corroborating evidence supplementing and confirming the first witnesses\u2019 testimony\u201d). \u201c \u2018It is not necessary that evidence prove the precise facts brought out in a witness\u2019s testimony before that evidence may be deemed corroborative of such testimony and properly admissible.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting State v. Higginbottom, 312 N.C. 760, 768, 324 S.E.2d 834, 840 (1985)).\nThe law does not require that Detective Grant\u2019s testimony about Jackie\u2019s statements be in the exact words used by Jackie. His testimony need only have tended to strengthen and confirm her testimony that she witnessed defendant hugging the victim. We hold that Detective Grant\u2019s testimony was indeed corroborative of Jackie\u2019s statements that she witnessed defendant hugging Joannie. In light of the trial court\u2019s limiting instruction that Detective Grant\u2019s testimony was for the sole purpose of corroboration, we find no error in the admission of the testimony.\nWe have carefully reviewed defendant\u2019s remaining arguments regarding the admission of Alisha\u2019s testimony that defendant hugged her and remarked that her breasts were \u201cbigger than Joannie\u2019s,\u201d and of a photograph of Joannie wearing a sports bra that defendant purchased for her. We conclude these arguments are without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges WYNN and TYSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Anne M. Middleton, for the State.", "Carolyn Clark for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLYDE EARNEST WILLIAMSON\nNo. COA00-982\n(Filed 2 October 2001)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to object \u2014 no plain error argument\nAlthough defendant contends the trial court erred in an indecent liberties, crimes against nature, and statutory sex offenses case by allowing into evidence testimony regarding defendant\u2019s prior Florida conviction for lewd and lascivious behavior based on the fact that the testimony was allegedly inadmissible as repressed memory testimony without accompanying expert testimony, this argument was not preserved for review because: (1) defendant never objected to the introduction of the testimony on grounds that it was improper repressed memory testimony without the necessary accompanying expert testimony as required by N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(1); and (2) defendant has failed to assert plain error.\n2. Evidence\u2014 prior crimes or acts \u2014 lewd and lascivious behavior \u2014 common plan or scheme \u2014 remoteness\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in an indecent liberties, crimes against nature, and statutory sex offenses case by allowing into evidence testimony regarding defendant\u2019s prior Florida conviction for lewd and lascivious behavior, that occurred about ten years earlier, under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b) because the similarities between the incidents establish defendant\u2019s common plan or scheme when both acts involved: (1) defendant befriending adolescent girls; (2) the girls spending significant amounts of time unsupervised with defendant on a daily basis; (3) the girls periodically spending the night with defendant and sometimes in the company of another adolescent girl; (4) the girls helping with chores around defendant\u2019s house but defendant did not pay them for their work; (5) defendant buying the girls gifts including toys; (6) defendant allowing the girls to drive his car and providing them with marijuana, alcohol and cigarettes while in his company; (7) defendant showing affection to both girls in the form of hugging and kissing them; (8) the sexual abuse occurring in defendant\u2019s home; (9) defendant showing pornographic videos to both girls; and (10) defendant instructing the victims to take showers before sexual activity, and defendant performing the same sexual acts on the victims.\n3. Evidence\u2014 pornographic videotape \u2014 testimony regarding content\nThe trial court did not err in an indecent liberties, crimes against nature, and statutory sex offenses case by admitting into evidence a pornographic videotape seized by a detective and his accompanying testimony regarding the content of the video, because: (1) the detective\u2019s testimony establishing that the videotape was the same videotape recovered from defendant\u2019s bedroom laid the proper foundation for its admission, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule. 901(a); (2) the jury only viewed the video case making the victim\u2019s identification of the video as the one defendant played for her, and the detective\u2019s identification as the one seized from defendant\u2019s trailer, sufficient for its admission; and (3) there was no prejudicial error in light of previous testimony that the videotape was a \u201cporno movie,\u201d as well as defendant\u2019s failure to object to such characterizations.\n4. Evidence\u2014 testimony regarding nude photograph of victim \u2014 photograph not offered into evidence\nThe trial court did not err in an indecent liberties, crimes against nature, and statutory sex offenses case by allowing the victim\u2019s friend to testify that she saw a nude photograph of the victim in defendant\u2019s bedroom when the State did not offer the photograph into evidence, because: (1) although the photograph itself is the best evidence of its contents, defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by this testimony when the victim previously testified that defendant took nude photographs of her and that she brought her friend into defendant\u2019s bedroom and showed her some of the nude photographs that defendant kept in his bedroom; and (2) the fact that the friend observed a nude photograph of the victim in defendant\u2019s bedroom was not a vital part of the State\u2019s evidence.\n5. Evidence\u2014 defendant hugged young sex victim excessively-corroboration\nThe trial court did not err in an indecent liberties, crimes against nature, and statutory sex offenses case by admitting a detective\u2019s testimony that defendant hugged the victim excessively to corroborate the testimony of the mother of the victim\u2019s friend stating that she observed defendant hug the victim a couple of times, because: (1) the law does not require that the detective\u2019s testimony about the mother\u2019s statements must be in the same words; (2) the detective\u2019s testimony was corroborative of the mother\u2019s statements that she witnessed defendant hugging the victim; and (3) the trial court gave a limiting instruction that the detective\u2019s testimony was for the sole purpose of corroboration.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 24 February 2000 by Judge J. Marlene Hyatt in Jackson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 August 2001.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Anne M. Middleton, for the State.\nCarolyn Clark for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0325-01", "first_page_order": 357, "last_page_order": 371 }