{ "id": 8915317, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LUKE EDWARD STILLER, JR., Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stiller", "decision_date": "2004-01-06", "docket_number": "No. COA03-214", "first_page": "138", "last_page": "142", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "162 N.C. App. 138" } ], "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": "295 N.C. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560971 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 L. Ed. 2d 114", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "finding no error where \"[a]fter the objection was sustained, defendant's counsel did not rephrase the question or make an offer of proof as to how [the witness] would have answered. . . .\"" } ], "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": "finding no error where \"[a]fter the objection was sustained, defendant's counsel did not rephrase the question or make an offer of proof as to how [the witness] would have answered. . . .\"" } ], "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": "643" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659773 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "406" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 L. Ed. 2d 43", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "522 U.S. 825", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11489369, 11488674, 11489412, 11488711, 11489160, 11488843, 11488750, 11489262, 11488977, 11489309, 11488916, 11489111, 11489209, 11489053, 11488798 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/522/0825-14", "/us/522/0825-01", "/us/522/0825-15", "/us/522/0825-02", "/us/522/0825-10", "/us/522/0825-05", "/us/522/0825-03", "/us/522/0825-12", "/us/522/0825-07", "/us/522/0825-13", "/us/522/0825-06", "/us/522/0825-09", "/us/522/0825-11", "/us/522/0825-08", "/us/522/0825-04" ] }, { "cite": "478 S.E.2d 146", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "157" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 54177 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "95" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "431 S.E.2d 188", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2529763 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "62", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E.2d 367", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374", "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 S.E.2d 691", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "692" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575136 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "746" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560971 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66", "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0055-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 479, "char_count": 8428, "ocr_confidence": 0.766, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8226727641581966e-07, "percentile": 0.8384606592894026 }, "sha256": "de0cfeedce294c9316816aabdc18fc76ffbf6bd2e6d54896311c4af43a4d188b", "simhash": "1:113401113f260846", "word_count": 1390 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:54.754463+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TYSON and STEELMAN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LUKE EDWARD STILLER, JR., Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUDSON, Judge.\nDefendant was charged with sexual misconduct with his son, stepdaughter and niece, some twenty-five years before the trial. A jury found defendant guilty of eight counts of second-degree rape and eleven counts of crime against nature, and the court entered judgment 9 May 2002. Defendant appeals, alleging the court erred in the jury instructions on crime against nature and sustaining the State\u2019s objections to evidence of defendant\u2019s good character. For the reasons discussed below, we find no prejudicial error.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that Anita Stiller Blackwelder, defendant\u2019s estranged stepdaughter, after seeing him with a little girl at a family funeral, recalled that defendant molested her as a child and she went to the police. Ms. Blackwelder testified that defendant had forced her to engage in various sexual acts with himself and with her brother, Richard. Defendant\u2019s niece, son, and two other women also testified that, when they were children, defendant had sexually assaulted them or forced them to engage in sexual activity with each other.\nDefendant testified in his own behalf, denying the charges against him. Patricia Simmons, defendant\u2019s former live-in companion, testified for defendant. Ms. Simmons and her young daughter, the child Ms. Blackwelder saw at the funeral with defendant, lived with defendant for .two years. After the Department of Social Services contacted Ms. Simmons, she had her daughter examined for sexual abuse, but no evidence of abuse was found. Defendant\u2019s cousin and a family friend who spent time with defendant as a child testified that defendant had never been inappropriate with them. The jury convicted defendant of eight counts of second-degree rape and eleven counts of crime against nature, and defendant appeals.\nDefendant first argues that the jury instructions on crime against nature were erroneous and allowed for his conviction on an improper theory. In charging the jury, the court defined a crime against nature as follows:\nAn unnatural sexual act would include cunnilingus, which is any touching, however slight, by the lips or tongue of one person to any part of the female sex organ of another; fellatio which is any touching by the lips or tongue of one person to the male sex organ of another and any penetration, however slight, by an object, such as a piece of candy, into the genital opening of a person\u2019s body.\nWhile this jury instruction is consistent with the pattern instruction on crime against nature, defendant argues that this offense is limited to oral and anal sex, and thus, the final part of the instruction given, regarding penetration, was error. For the reasons discussed below, we disagree.\nCrime against nature is defined by the common law and interpreted by our courts. At the time of these offenses in 1976 and 1977, crime against nature was defined to \u201cinclude[] all kindred acts of a bestial character whereby degraded and perverted sexual desires are sought to be gratified.\u201d State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 746, 142 S.E.2d 691, 692 (1965). Our Supreme Court has stated that \u201cthough penetration by or of a sexual organ is an essential element of the crime, the crime against nature is not limited to penetration by the male sexual organ.\u201d State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 66, 243 S.E.2d 367, 374 (1978) (internal citations omitted). Instead, the offense is broad enough to include all forms of oral and anal sex, as well as unnatural acts with animals. Id. While no case in our State has specifically included penetration of the genital opening by an object in its definition of crime against nature, such an act is entirely consistent with the language of Joyner. Thus, we do not believe the court\u2019s instruction was erroneous.\nIn addition, defendant failed to object to the instructions when given. Thus, even were the instruction in error, our review would be limited to plain error. \u201c[T]o reach the level of \u2018plain error\u2019 . . ., the error in the trial court\u2019s jury instructions must be so fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached.\u201d State v. Collins, 334 N.C. 54, 62, 431 S.E.2d 188, 193 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the entire record of consistent testimony from numerous victims and witnesses, any possible error in the instructions probably had no effect on the jury\u2019s finding of guilt. This assignment of error is without merit.\nIn his second argument, defendant argues it was error for the court to sustain the State\u2019s objection to evidence of defendant\u2019s good character. We disagree.\nDefendant called Patricia Simmons, his former live-in companion, to the stand and asked her the following questions:\nQ. [By Defense Counsel] Do you still reside in Mr. Stiller\u2019s home?\nA. No.\nQ. You decided about whether or not you would if he got out?\n[State\u2019s Objection Sustained]\nQ. You moved out from his residence.\nA. Yes.\nQ. Is that fair to say?\nA. Yes.\nQ. What would be your concerns about letting Dominique [her daughter] be around Mr. Stiller, if any, at this point following the medical examination?\n[State\u2019s Objection Sustained]\nFollowing the State\u2019s cross-examination of Ms. Simmons, defendant on redirect asked, \u201cIs [your moving out] because of anything that you\u2019re aware or [sic] that you believe Mr. Stiller did that caused you to move out?\u201d The State\u2019s objection was again sustained.\nDefendant contends that the court prevented him from putting his character in issue, by offering evidence of good character from Ms. Simmons. However, defendant failed to make an offer of proof as to what Ms. Simmons would have said, and thus, has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. \u201cTo prevail on a contention that evidence was improperly excluded, either a defendant must make an offer of proof as to what the evidence would have shown or the relevance and content of the answer must be obvious from the context of the questioning.\u201d State v. Geddie, 345 N.C. 73, 95, 478 S.E.2d 146, 157, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 825, 139 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1996).\nDefendant contends that it is obvious from the context of the questions that Ms. Simmons\u2019 excluded answers would have reflected her lack of concern about her daughter living with defendant and that she did not move out of his home because of such concerns. We disagree, finding that the content and relevance of the excluded testimony are not evident from the context of the questioning. See State v. Hipps, 348 N.C. 377, 406, 501 S.E.2d 625, 643 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1180, 143 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1999) (finding no error where \u201c[a]fter the objection was sustained, defendant\u2019s counsel did not rephrase the question or make an offer of proof as to how [the witness] would have answered. . . .\u201d).\nNo prejudicial error.\nJudges TYSON and STEELMAN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUDSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Diane G. Miller, for the State.", "Miles & Montgomery, by Mark Montgomery, for the defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LUKE EDWARD STILLER, JR., Defendant\nNo. COA03-214\n(Filed 6 January 2004)\n1. Sexual Offenses\u2014 crime against nature \u2014 instruction\u2014penetration by object\nThe trial court did not err in a multiple second-degree rape and crime against nature case by its instruction on crime against nature, because: (1) while no case in our State has specifically included penetration of the genital opening by an object in its definition of crime against nature, such an act is consistent with the language of State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55 (1978); and (2) defendant failed to object to the instructions when given, and the instructions did not arise to the level of plain error.\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to make offer of proof\nAlthough defendant contends the trial court erred in a multiple second-degree rape and crime against nature case by sustaining the State\u2019s objection to evidence of defendant\u2019s good character, defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review because: (1) defendant failed to make an offer of proof as to what the witness would have said; and (2) the content and relevance of the excluded testimony are not evident from the context of the questioning.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 9 May 2002 by Judge W. Erwin Spainhour in the Superior Court in Cabarrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 November 2003.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Diane G. Miller, for the State.\nMiles & Montgomery, by Mark Montgomery, for the defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0138-01", "first_page_order": 166, "last_page_order": 170 }